Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 21
July 21
[edit]
- 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kentlogo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This logo is more than simple geometric shapes which are combined to make more complex patters such as the tree and the unusual set of polygons it is located in Fasach Nua (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stated elsewhere why I think this might be free at [1]. I'll just copy and paste it here:
"I don't believe the image is copyrightable at all as nothing seems to cross the threshold of originality. It consists of an irregularly shaped pentagon. Simple geometric shapes such as pentagons cannot be copyrighted and so they are in the public domain. Inside the pentagon is a border, replicating the pentagon. Again, not copyrightable. Inside the border is a shape which resembles the punctuation symbol "caret" (^). Below the caret is a shape that resembles a W, and below that, another W with a vertical line protruding from the center point. Outside the pentagon are the words "THE CITY", "OF KENT", and "⋅ OHIO ⋅". Simple typeface cannot be copyrighted. Surrounding the words "THE CITY OF KENT OHIO" is another pentagon with a border.
Since the elements that make up the logo are nothing but colour, geometric shapes, and letters, and/or minor variations thereof, none of which, either alone or in combination, meet the threshold of originality. Originality comprises of two parts. Independent creation (in that it has not been copied from another work), and sufficient creativity. The Supreme Court has ruled that "the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice", but also noted that standard designs, figures, names, lettering, typographic ornamentation, colours, and geometric shapes, are not creative enough to be copyrightable. People often incorrectly assume that logos are copyrighted, but they aren't. Best Western have tried to copyright their logo three times, and have been denied each time because it consisted of a geometric border, words, and a crown that could resemble a stylised W."
Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to come across as pushy but seeing as this unresolved issue pretty much killed the FAC nomination of the article it is in, I would definitely appreciate some kind of resolution. The presence of the seal in the article has a valid rationale whether it's copyrighted or not. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:51, 1 August 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Midway Ford.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Scanned from printed source. Possibly from a business card or postcard. Eeekster (talk) 02:24, 21 July 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⚡ 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Selena22.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Extremely unlikely the uploader owns the copyright to this image, as it was in or before 1995 (Selena died in 1995), when the user was just an infant. AJona1992 seems to not understand copyright, as shown in the past at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 22#File:Selena12.jpg as well as the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selena22.jpg. — ξxplicit 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This my family's own picture they have passed it all to me, get over it haha AJona1992 (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't the "same" do you need classes? lolz AJona1992 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that you are kidding. They are clearly the same image. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, the uploader has clearly not much understanding of what our projects are about (free content) and keeps on vandalizing the singers article with all this false author claims and uploads of copyright violations also on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said before just because you guys "think" it's not free or that I don't own it doesn't make you guys correct. Selena is FAMOUS FAMOUS of course theres gonna be millions of the SAME SAME SAME photos online, you guys think she is nothing! If I say it's free and if I say it's OWN then it is what I say it is! I will re-upload this picture later on today so you guys can think about messing with me again, this is getting out of hand with you guys. Just by searching the photo on google doesn't make it true! there are stealer out there, I mean this belongs to my family who passed it to me, yet you guys keep ignoring me like if I'm nothing but a brick wall. You esp, Mufka just hate that I keep bringing life into the Selena article with pictures so you JUST want to get rid of them with your followers, omb are you guys like bff or something? Get a life, ok I was trying to be nice to you, but I see if you do that, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. I will continue to upload pictures that belongs to me, I sent e-mails to those people but yet all you guys want to do is keep picking on me (which failed hahaha) about Selena leave her alone, because I am here and that bulling shit isn't gonna FLY while I am here. Selena WILL have more photos, WILL have more information, WILL have more sections, WILL have more categories, WILL have more contributors (thanks to me) WILL WILL WILL have MORE MORE MORE and TONS more of photos!!! hahahaha. And if I have an attitude so what? this is who I was raised which was to not let NO ONE talk to me like that and/or let anyone bully me for any reason, Selena is my passion my love my idol and I don't care if you guys "think" (you guys need to read the definition of think/believe) that these photos aren't mine but NEWSFLASH they ARE MINES. If you guys don't like it then you guys can go attack worthless JLO and other artist who have tons of photos, yet Selena can't yo get outta here with that. Selena I am not gonna listen to them anymore, these photos are of my grandmother and mostly by by MOTHER they were fans of this lovely women who cared so much that she died because of it, so why should I be nice to you guys, you guys keep on attacking me which is WRONG. AJona1992 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Jonathan just becuase you have a photo or you take it does not mean that you are the copyholder. TbhotchTalk C. 16:11, 28 July 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Oatay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Stated to be PD, but file looks a lot with one thineye found in his obituary on a Turkish newspaper. Darwinius (talk) 14:07, 21 July 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bergetiger.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Source is unclear. Darwinius (talk) 14:21, 21 July 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Alex Snitker.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Source is unclear Darwinius (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is the Snitker for Senate campaign. My name is Adrian Wyllie and I am the media director of the campaign (see http://snitker2010.com/contact-information/ for verification). I am authorized to act in all matters regarding copyrighted materials for the campaign. This file may be published and reproduced freely. -PlainSight (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If further clarification is required, please contact me at press@snitker2010.com -PlainSight (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Adrian, I believe you have to send an OTRS permission confirming that the file is indeed free for use.--Darwinius (talk) 16:50, 21 July 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:USS Jackson 1860.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Was nominated here before see here. Closed as keep. Multiple nominations of Heyl artworks on Commons have been closed as delete when nominated with the same rationale. See, for example, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Grant (Steamship, 1863-1869).jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steamship Allegany (1863-1865).jpg. Heyl's work is not in the public domain. This image must be deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:H63854t-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Erik Heyl was not an employee of the US Navy, nor was this image created for the US Navy. Heyl's 'Early American Steamers' is still protected by copyright. Multiple nominations of Heyl artworks on Commons have been closed as delete when nominated with the same rationale. See, for example, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Grant (Steamship, 1863-1869).jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steamship Allegany (1863-1865).jpg. Nominations here have been closed as keep, clearly in error. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 21 July 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⚡ 01:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:2011 nba allstar logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I really doubt the NBA has released this logo under a CC license. Eeekster (talk) 17:28, 21 July 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Audient8024.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Given source states- "© Audient ltd - 2008"- Not self as claimed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:10, 21 July 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Audientzen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Source given claims "© Audient ltd - 2008" - Not self as claimed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 21 July 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Animtv.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a screen capture of a website that would be protected under copyright and requires a WP:NFCC rational. —Farix (t | c) 20:48, 21 July 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⚡ 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Statues displayed outside the Everson Museum, Syracuse, New York..JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is claimed as PD-Self but freedom of panorama does not apply in the United States. The image therefore needs a fair-use rationale. Rodhullandemu 21:10, 21 July 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 Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Arpalı3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This image and the uploaders other uploads (the not deleted ones: [2] + the deleted ones [3]) are from www.arpali.bel.tr and other webpages. They are uploaded as "own work". Uploading from different websites with different cameras could be possible but I would like a second opinion on that. MGA73 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 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.