Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 14: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 54: Line 54:
==== [[:File:Holmeswidesg.jpg]] ====
==== [[:File:Holmeswidesg.jpg]] ====
Reportedly self-made, but appears to be a software screenshot &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Reportedly self-made, but appears to be a software screenshot &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
==== [[:File:Holmessg.jpg]] ====
same as above &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:54, 14 April 2009

April 14

orphaned, if legit logo, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no source, appears to be official promotional shot Skier Dude (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, given background appears to be an official photo Skier Dude (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned screenshot, uploader most likely not (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but no other information is given. This is a relatively low-resolution image with no metadata; there is no evidence that the uploader is indeed the creator of the image. The caption for this image in Jaani Peuhu identifies it as a "Peuhu Promo Pic", which seems to imply that it comes from a third-party source. —Bkell (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"PAF" is not a source, it's a string of three letters. Need to have the proper source in order to verify the GFDL claim. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recreated a deleted file: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ASpokeo+logo.jpg Used only for a spammy article akaDruid (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"PMA" is not a sufficient source to check GFDL status. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Official file photo" in the filename indicates that it is unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright as claimed in the license tag. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the uploader actually has permission from the publisher for it to be GFDL, but even then, it's not be used right now. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reportedly self-made, but appears to be a software screenshot – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same as above – Quadell (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]