Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 March 29

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this image in an oficial magazine from Grand Central. In fact this image provides a better image tthan the magazine! See here Simply south (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

contradictory statements - source "taken from tv" with "self" as (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this image, the text, is copyrighted. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low res, no meta-data, border, obviously taken during a match. Probably taken from another website. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: kept, no evidence of copyvio. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

license is public domain, but where is the monkey and snow picture from? Otterathome (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shot by my poor self, dear sir. One at the zoo, the other at Bhutan. Can I, please, at least release my own work to public domain? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept, uploaded by photographer, free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{pd-art}} does not apply to statues, where the photographer has freedom to choose angles and whatnot- it is not merely a simple reproduction. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the sourcing from the Czech Wikipedia is perfectly reasonable. There is Metadata there, and I see no reason to assume bad faith. This should be re-licensed as GFDL (as this was how it was posted on the Czech Wikipedia), but otherwise it is fine. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of photo is not the subject of article it's used in (Thomas Verne Washington, who can be seen on his own website here), has a Corbis watermark in the top left (therefore arguably non-free and definitely not CC as the image page suggests). My deduction is that it was used for subtle vandalism - it was uploaded 18:36, 2 January 2009, added to the article 18:38, 2 January 2009 in an infobox with other false information (that disagreed with the body of the article) and the uploader has previously vandalised WP. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was really meant to be an FfD, but using WP:FRIENDLY for the first time I screwed it up. Withdraw. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kept, retagged correctly. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the source is GPL, I am unable to locate any notice that the logo is also GPL. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fair to assume that the logo for free software is also free unless there is a notice to the contrary. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website states "©2009 dmoz.org.in . All rights reserved. dmoz.org.in(FDP) ". — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted TV program. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Mfield (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, [1] [2] [3] — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader uploaded this file previously to the Commons, but it was deleted for copyvio. He was already warned for plagiarism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is listed as GFDL, however it is based on a copyrighted anime, so this seems unlikely. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 21:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the source is probably not free Hidro (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kept, now properly tagged as non-free with a rationale. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is claimed as GFDL, however it is a photograph of a copyrighted Transformers character. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image as listed as being "use it for any purpose", however it is a picture of a copyrighted Zoids figurine. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: All kept, and source corrected. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cited source does not exist; unable to verify license (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After discussions with the uploader, I found that this one and most of the listings below are the result of a typographical error in the cited source. Any of these which are claimed as 'geograph.org' are actually from 'geograph.org.uk' and are correctly listed under a free license. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the uploader is a professional photographer who for some reason wants to keep his name anonymous, he is not the copyright holder of this image. 216.93.215.181 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.