Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 February 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < February 3 | February 5 > |
|---|
February 4
[edit]
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as CC, but with caveats that cannot possibly be in keeping with the license. If it's not for duplication or use without permission, it ain't CC. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with Eskog. — BQZip01 — talk 04:53, 6 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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jose-Goldner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Studio style photo. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader iscopyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:11, 4 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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:DSC 0263.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted, judging by the watermark. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 06:19, 4 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 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: Keep.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Beer Rebate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- photo of a copyrighted promotional sign IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete the wording is not creative enough to be copyrightable, but the lettering with the snow is not just a typeface and I would say copyrightable. Not a really important photo, I think deletable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This lettering is indeed a font. Notice that the "A" and "S" are identical. Tag as {{pd-textlogo}} — BQZip01 — talk 04:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per BQZip01. I also agree with Calliopejen that this sign is not creative enough to be copyrightable. AgneCheese/Wine 22:49, 10 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 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: Keep.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bellcampus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- the sign doesn't fall under freedom of panorama making the image unfree IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the sign is just letters - not copyrightable - no FOP problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Callio. — BQZip01 — talk 04:55, 6 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 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: Keep.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sign is just letters, not copyrightable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep same as above. — BQZip01 — talk 04:56, 6 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 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: Keep.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bom airport.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- does the sculpture make this nonfree? IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This appears to be a sculpture in the Bombay airport. Most airport art is permanent, and India has freedom of panorama. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep India has full freedom of panorama like most British Commonwealth countries...including Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:59, 9 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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the sign doesn't fall under freedom of panorama making the image unfree --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, because of drawing of Indian. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:58, 5 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 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: Keep; Solution Offered.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Game artwork although PD-text may apply Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The image I chose is of the card at an oblique angle, with much of the txt blurred/out-of-focus, rather than a top-down image, which would be a straight copy of the card. I believe qualifies as merely an illustration of the card. The actual text on the card is quoted in the Get Out of Jail Free article. Are photographs of games and parts of games really not allowed to illustrate articles on the game itself? — M3TA(info) @ 17:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue is with the license not the image, as a photo of a non-free game even just in part the image is a derivative work of the game so {{Non-free fair use in}} and a rational.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What if I include a 'Non-free media use rationale' as in File:Cluesuspectstokens.jpg - would that be OK? Note that neither File:Cluedo_arms.png, File:Cluedo_arms_c._1960.png or File:US_Deluxe_Monopoly_Tokens.jpg include such a rationale, but would surely be counted as derivative works of the game based on your statement above? FYI, the image itself is Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Licensed. Done — M3TA(info) @ 20:44, 4 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:NaFiannaEireannROH.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Mural - FOP applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- depends what country is it.See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama
- Tentative keep appears to be from Northern Ireland. UK has FOP. Is this even a mural though? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:59, 5 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 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 Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TweakVista.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Clearly a screenshot of (C) software NOT under GPL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- obvious copyvio i added {{speedy delete|fake license}}--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- uploader stated: This image was nominated for speedy deletion as being under a "fake license". However, I am a representative of Stardock, and so able to make such a license grant. GreenReaper (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC) --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:33, 4 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 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Peter criss.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image stated as selfmade by uploader. THe exif states the image was created by "Bobby Bank" which is a very different name from what the uploader has on his userpage. Peripitus (Talk) 20:53, 4 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.