Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 26

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: Speedy delete - G4 Happy‑melon 13:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bogotacoolpictureb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• To the best of my knowledge, the licensing information is incorrect. This is a repost of the deleted version on Commons (commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bogtalandmarksandblaba.jpg) and on Commons the file was reposted with the same name (commons:File:Bogotacoolpictureb.jpg) (of course with a tag claiming that it was from flickr, but with no URL). This file is also a BMP file, despite the .jpg extension (look at the MIME type right next to the file size). We should never use BMP files on Wikipedia (WP:IUP#FORMAT). Please remember that the uploader has been blocked twice on Commons for uploading copyrighted pictures (first time: 3 days; second time: 2 weeks). She has no valid fair use claim since there is an alternative on Commons for this copyrighted picture. PleaseStand (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now (s)he has uploaded yet another duplicate (check the File links section at the bottom of the description page): File:Bogota skyline and Panoramics.jpg. PleaseStand (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please also refer to the following: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_8#File:BogotaSkyline and another interest points.jpg, even though I cannot verify that this is a duplicate (it is a deleted file). Just because of that reason and also the fact that the user just keeps reposting the picture is why I have not speedied the picture here. PleaseStand (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casey Hudson 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image looks posed, professional, etc. Unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:41, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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, PD tag removed, renominated NRD. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capital Crime Writer Dagger Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a logo, unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is owned by Capital Crime Writers fully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinehobbs (talk • contribs) 05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC) The logo has been in use by the CCW circa 1989 -- The designer is unknown. We attempted to verify who had designed it two years ago by researching through the historical files of the organization and asking the founding members, and other long term members. No one was able to identify the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinehobbs (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• label as non-free and apply appropriate FURs. This logo is not free and must be labeled as such. Usage falls under WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:20, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zor Andranik and Njdeh in Sophia October 12, 1912.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright. No source given. History of upload problems. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/retag Leo, simply retag the image as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and lets move on. Basically, anything published prior to 1923 is PD in the US. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:23, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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.

Looks like a building to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friendship Gate at Overfelt-cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• What country is this taken in?
• What is the freedom of panorama for this country? IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, recommend a move to Commons The US has Freedom of Panorama. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment freedom of panorama in US only extends to buildings not works of art but the object in question has elements of both.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PRuia.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No proof of GFDL claim Woogee (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphaned, probably copyvio (given source claims copyright). — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:29, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vnayyar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image taken from corporate website, no proof for GFDL claim. Woogee (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphaned, probable copyvio. Given source claims copyright — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:31, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SRuia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image taken from coproate website, no proof of GFDL claim Woogee (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphaned, probable copyvio. Given source claims copyright — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:31, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RRuia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Taken from corporate website, no proof of GFDL release. Woogee (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphaned, probable copyvio. Given source claims copyright — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:31, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JobsLost.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image appears to be copyrighted. Source site's TOS says all site content is copyrighted (http://www.barackobama.com/terms/. I can't find any indication it's been released into the public domain as the current license tag states.) Bkwillwm (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the source, the image is free for all to download and, apparently, distribute. Under Your use of Information Contained on Website, it says "The entire Website is copyrighted. Certain articles or materials within the Website also may be separately copyrighted by us or by others, as indicated. If you find these materials useful, you may download, copy, display, print out, or send a copy to others so long as each copy indicates the appropriate copyright notice, credits us as your source, and is used only for your personal use. You are expressly prohibited, however, from downloading, copying, displaying, printing out, or sending a copy to others for bulk or commercial uses, or for any defamatory or otherwise illegal purpose. You acknowledge that the permission granted in this section does not constitute an endorsement by us of you or your use of the information and content. Please contact us directly for special copyright permissions." -12.7.202.2 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Keep This information cannot be copyrighted. The information here is a simple graph and requires no originality and is complied from PD information. Ergo, it is also PD. That said, the summary information is severely POV and needs to be changed to be appropriately neutral ("A graph showing jobs lost since XYZ spanning two presidencies"). It should be appropriately sourced and tagged {{PD-textlogo}}. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source information listed above indicates that this image is restricted from commercial use; this violates Wikipedia's image policy. You're right that the data is in the public domain, but this means we should just create a new version of the chart. Why get into arguments about whether or not there is enough originality? The site claims a copyright and does not allow commercial use, so lets just respect the site's own claim and create a new image. I'll have a replacement up soon if no one beats me to it.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you insist on doing this, please be sure to reproduce the red/blue color scheme for "A graph showing jobs lost since XYZ spanning two presidencies" suggested by the Admin above. (If you don't, someone else surely will.) -12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • New image here: American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Developments_under_the_Act--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The original was better for identifying the Administrations and using a color scheme standard for showing worsening vs improving.-12.7.202.2 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • MBHiii, if you feel there's a need to keep the partisan color scheme of Republican/red and Democrat/blue, then do it yourself. Talk about being ungrateful. MookieG (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will the Admin above please render an opinion on the various proposed titles for this, and, its use in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 vs the one above? -12.7.202.2 (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A request has gone to the website for clarification, though it'd be better from an Admin. I think "If you find these materials useful, you may download, copy, display, print out, or send a copy to others so long as each copy indicates the appropriate copyright notice, credits us as your source, and is used only for your personal use. You are expressly prohibited, however, from downloading, copying, displaying, printing out, or sending a copy to others for bulk or commercial uses" allows it for WP's use. -74.242.254.9 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I'm not an admin, though I appreciate the mistaken identity. I'll take it as a compliment.
    2. I concur with below that the restrictions releasing this image would not be compatible with WP (a common misconception), but I stand by my original assertion that the image is NOT copyrightable. A graph depicting PD numbers is inherently PD.
    3. As such, its inclusion anywhere in Wikipedia (or the world) is completely apropos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfree, although possibly "fair use". Although Wikipedia is not commercial, our license allows commercial reuse, so a no-commercial-use license is not an allowed license. Hence, this image would be allowed only as "fair use", which would mean in criticism of OfA, and possibly not in this article. If a third party source would comment on the alleged partisan color scheme, then it might be allowable as fair use in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, File:Recovery job losses Jan 2010.png would be a suitable replacement image for the content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which only serves to prove my point that it is indeed PD (otherwise this would be a derivative work and copyright would be retained). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:53, 11 March 2010 (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 file 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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jelena jankovic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File is copied from [1] Eeekster (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete copyvio. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:32, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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, PD tag removed, renominated NRD. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Empty Aquafina bottle.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Content is logo- No dispute as to authorship of photo itself Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove from user page, add to article appropriately, and provide FUR. The bottle itself is not copyrightable, but the label is. Otherwise, delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:35, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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, PD tag removed, renominated NRD. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1.5 Liter of Arrowhead.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Includes non-free logo - No dispute as to authorship of photo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove from user page, add to article appropriately, and provide FUR. The bottle itself is not copyrightable, but the label is. Otherwise, delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:35, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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: Keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kodak digital camera.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Design right in camera shown, No disupte as to photo authorship Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be one of Sfan00 IMG's new hobbies for tagging images as unfree. This is a photograph of a digital camera. It is not a photograph of a picture in an art gallery, which could lead to problems. Please explain why a photograph like this is going to lead to copyright issues. Reality check needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is nothing copyrightable in this image whatsoever. If you dispute that finding, please state why. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Memo to Sfan00 IMG: Before clogging up the page with any more dubious tags based on this "issue", please bear in mind that any household object - even a humble teapot or a chair - could have design rights. This does not mean that a photograph of it is likely to lead to copyright problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per comments above. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2010 (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 file 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: Keep. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perrier - 750 ml.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo/bottle design as subject of image- No dispute as to photo authorship Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bottles are something that are explicitly functional and cannot be copyrighted: Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc.. The label is simply text. Ergo, the image is properly labeled in general, but needs {{pd-textlogo}} and {{trademark}} added. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (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 file 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: Keep, tagged non-free. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GrummanAmericanTigerEmblem02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No information as to status of this artwork/logo - Authorship of photo NOT disputed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - re-licenced as a logo. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs to be smaller — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - reduced to 350 px. Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2010 (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⚡ 09:21, 5 March 2010 (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 file 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: Keep, tagged non-free. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GrummanAA-5ALeapingCheetahEmblem.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo/artwork - Authorship of photo NOT disputed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - re-licenced as a logo. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs to be cropped. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - cropped and reduced - Ahunt (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2010 (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⚡ 09:21, 5 March 2010 (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 file 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, PD tag removed, renominated NRD. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Squirt.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo/product artwork - Authorship of photo NOT disputed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photo at my office with my camera.Donmike10 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you own the copyrights to artwork on the drinks can? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Retag and add appropriate FUR; remove from user page. Sfan00, no he doesn't own those rights, but that is a common misconception. Please try not to bite the newcomers and help them out where able. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:47, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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.

BMacA is not quite right but close. Coins are 3d objects according to Godwin so PD-art is not appropriate. Evidently there's no copyright in a thousand year-old coin, only in a modern picture of one. Personally I don't see how coins are significantly more 3d than some paintings, but what the hell do I know? TinEye and the Wayback machine say this image came from here. So not free + replaceable = bummer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sweyn Coinfront.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I think that images of coins are protected by copyright, no matter what. I don't think the "originality of expression" cuts it for coins, or else we'd see coins in many more articles. See this by Mike Godwin: [2]. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A slavish reproduction of a PD object is, by definition, PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Did you read the comments that I wlinked to? Wikipedia's chief lawyer disagrees with you: "... they [images of coins] are copyrightable by the person taking the photographs".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  They certainly can be copyrightable, but in this case, it isn't. It is a slavish copy of a PD object is, by definition, PD. If you had copied it in some manner that involved, lighting or something involving creativity. In this case, it has none. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The image which Godwin was referred to (File:Agathokleia.jpg) doesn't appear to much different than this one. Can you give a wlink to the 'slavish rationale'? I'd like to read more about this type of thing. I've only seen such templates which deal with works of art.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I actually see a noticeable degree of difference between the two images. This image looks like it was placed on a scanner, while the image you cite looks like it was more carefully photographed. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2010 (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 file 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ross Business School 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• uploader is unlikely to be copyright holder of architects drawing 207.69.137.36 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retag. Add FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont see how wikipedia's fair use can be applied. as with a living person, there is clearly the ability to obtain a fully free use photograph of the building. MM207.69.137.27 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do I still need to comment on this? It is a photo of a building, free and open to the public —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHorne (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 March 2010 (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 file 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: Keep, tagged non-free. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cessna177BCardinal02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo/Artwork - but no further details given Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - re-licenced as a logo. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but needs to be smaller. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - cropped and reduced to 350 px - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2010 (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⚡ 09:21, 5 March 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Article - Neckwear News - The Art of the Deal640px.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Neckwear News seems lilke a copyrighted work to me. No proof of permission is provided, and uploader licensing this workin the public domain. Should be either marked as non-free, or requires OTRS ticket. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused copyrighted material with no encyclopedic value. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:52, 27 February 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exhibit4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphan. The page that previously used it was speedy deleted as copyright violation. Cnilep (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potvspro.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphan. The page that previously used it was speedy deleted as copyright violation. Cnilep (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exhibit5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphan. The page that previously used it was speedy deleted as copyright violation. Cnilep (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exhibit3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphan. The page that previously used it was speedy deleted as copyright violation. Cnilep (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris Brown - Sing Like Me.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Album cover, no indication that the uploader owns the copyright. — ξ^xplicit 19:08, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:In My Zone (Rhythm & Streets).png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Album cover, no indication that the uploader owns the copyright. — ξ^xplicit 19:23, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:In My Zone (Rhythm & Streets) back.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Album cover, no indication that the uploader owns the copyright. — ξ^xplicit 19:24, 26 February 2010 (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 file 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SmilovicJason.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• the source link is protected with a password Hidro (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no evidence that shows it to be non-free. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No evidence the photo has been released under a free licence. If we can't confirm it to be free, then it has to be assumed to be unfree.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "If we can't confirm it to be free, then it has to be assumed to be unfree." Common misconception, but there is no policy/guideline which states this or anything like it. Furthermore, just because you or I don't have access to it doesn't mean that the uploader (who presumably got the photo from this site) doesn't have access and that the license isn't there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:46, 2 March 2010 (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.