Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 6

< Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

edit

File:Letrero Nuevo Cuartel Policia Municipal, Barrio Canas Urbano, Ponce, PR.jpg

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⚡ 06:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Letrero Nuevo Cuartel Policia Municipal, Barrio Canas Urbano, Ponce, PR.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
You have to be kidding. Exactly where in Wikipedia policies does it state that public community signs paid by taxpayers in a democratically-elected government under the United States flag and announcing a new public structure also paid by the people are copyrighted because they are "giant"? And where does it define the exact dimensions which would qualify a sign as "giant" and, then, where does it allow -presumably, per your argument- non-giant signs to be included in Wikipedia, but not giant signs? No offense, but a "doubt" by a paranoid deletionist is not in itself enough reason for deletion - you have to actually -prove- your argument based on Wikipedia policies.
The fact is this photo of an outdoors sign is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0. The fact is the construction and erection of this sign was paid by the people, as stated and duplicated HERE without paranoical concerns. The fact is CC BY-SA 2.0 is a perfectly acceptable license in Wikipedia. And the fact is there is no Wikipedia policy stating that photos of giant street signs are forbidden in Wikipedia. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Delete It is irrelevant if a poster is giant or not. It is, however, relevant if it takes up a large portion of the photo. See commons:COM:DM for more information. See also commons:COM:FOP#United States and commons:COM:DW which tell that you can't take a photo of anything placed outdoors. Anything produced by the US federal government is free and without copyright, but material produced for most/all municipal governments are copyrighted. This was obviously produced for a municipal government, so there is no reason to assume that the poster is free. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the state authorities of Puerto Rico have a no-copyrights rule comparable to the US federal government (which as far as I know they don't), the poster is copyrighted and the photo is a derivative work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Giant poster or not, what a disruption of the encyclopedia! If the image brings concerns why, instead of paranoically attempting to remove it, why dont you just fix its copyright status. It would consume less time and effort from everyone and would release everyone else to perfom more productive tasks for the building of the encyclopedia. Don't bother,,,, it has already been done, but if you really want to HELP, do the right thing and correct the CR status of the other file on the Parque Ecologico that you also proposed for deletion before I get to it too. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
    • Comment This is not about "fixing" licence tags, this is about not uploading images not allowed here. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment And where is the WP:Assume good faith in all of that? The claim "images not allowed here" is your opinion, an attempt to pass judgment beforehand, a "condemned before proven guilty"; What Wikipedia policy is that? And what other Wikipedia policy states that fair use images are not allowed?
We should work towards BUILDING an encyclopedia and, where an error is perceived, attempt to work together to solve it. Changing the license into the new valid license that I had since provided helps do that and, no offense, but criticizing the well-intended, good faith, work of others doesn't. Worse yet, you relentlessly continue to go on and on with this argumentative "fixing license tags" which disrupts the work even more.
In any event, the license has been changed from the original PD into Fair Use, and PD licensing should now be a moot point, and that should now close this discussion unless the new license is still faulty for some reason. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
But the fair use licensing is also moot since it doesn't comply with WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, in this new claim of yours never heard before, exactly what part of nfcc doesn't it comply with, or are you just saying things? Anyone can claim compliance or noncompliance, but defending your point of view is another story. Let's be bold and get down to specifics with claims that are substantiated. This sort of 1-on-1 arguments are not healthy for the building of the encyclopedia; please make your arguments w/o just firing shots and no subtance. I invite you to be bold and discuss your claims with at least the same level of detail that the image's Fair Use page exposes the criteria for fair use validity for everyone to see. Most anyone assuming good faith will note that the information provided there is not trying to cut any corners. Don't leave me (the rest of us?) wandering if your are assuming good faith or not: imo, the fair use criteria HAS been met, but just claiming it hasn't been only for the sake of what may be read as "scoring a WP:POINT" is against Wikipedia's expected behavioral practices. If you think the new license is still faulty for some reason, then I think I am talking for everyone here if I say we expect you to argue on exactly WHICH point it is faulty and why, rather than just "firing with a loose cannon". My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[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.

File:Letrero del Parque Ecologico bajo construccion en Barrio San Anton, Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg

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 discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Letrero del Parque Ecologico bajo construccion en Barrio San Anton, Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • KEEP
As above: You have to be kidding. Exactly where in Wikipedia policies does it state that public community signs paid by taxpayers in a democratically-elected government under the United States flag and announcing a new public structure also paid by the people are copyrighted because they are "giant"? And where does it define the exact dimensions which would qualify a sign as "giant" and, then, where does it allow -presumably, per your argument- non-giant signs to be included in Wikipedia, but not giant signs? No offense, but a "doubt" by a paranoid deletionist is not in itself enough reason for deletion - you have to actually -prove- your argument based on Wikipedia policies.
The fact is this photo of an outdoors sign is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0. The fact is the construction and erection of this sign was paid by the people, as stated and duplicated HERE without paranoical concerns. The fact is CC BY-SA 2.0 is a perfectly acceptable license in Wikipedia. And the fact is there is no Wikipedia policy stating that photos of giant street signs are forbidden in Wikipedia. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[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.

File:Toys R Us Philippines.jpg

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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toys R Us Philippines.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • I don't think this counts as a photograph of any one "copyrightable" creative work. Neither the architecture nor any one particular element of copyrighted design of the shop seems to be the main topic of the photograph. Making a copyright issue out of this would mean taking the no-FoP position to an absurd extreme. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the only way for this to stay would be non-free. It's a photo of an obviously new building, so there has to be copyright. It's just a pain that countries don't agree on a common FoP policy - it causes so much confusion.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is still the question about the double templates for this situation (see above): one of them treats the photo as free in the United States (but unfree in the source country) while the other one treats it as unfree everywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question. Honestly, I have no idea. It's the first time I even see {{FoP-USonly}}, and I'm not sure its existence was ever vetted by any informed consensus about the legal position expressed there. It's something I've been wondering about myself, but I wouldn't want to answer without a copyright lawyer. Let's put it like this: If a US court were ever to decide in a matter of a copyright infringement claim regarding a photograph of, say, a building in France, I suppose it would look into French law to figure out whether or not the building as such was or wasn't copyrighted in the first place. Fine. But once it has decided the building is in fact copyrighted in France, when it comes to figuring out whether that copyright also entails control over the right to photographic reproduction, would it still look towards French law or would it apply US law? I really don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section just discussing the {{FoP-USonly}} template and it's use has been moved to Template talk:FoP-USonly - if we come to any conclusions, it's best to keep the talk with the template for future reference. Please continue there.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - About the only thing copyrightable in this photo is the logo, and even that is probably not copyrightable in the US or Philippines per commons:COM:TOO#United States (Philippine law is based on US law, so presumably they are similar). Even if it is copyrightable, it is not the focus of the photo, rather the store is, so it is probably de minimis. Even if it isn't necessarily de minimis, even the foundation lawyer stated in similar cases, it was not worth the effort of worrying (citation). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (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.

File:Gianolibrad'oro.gif

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 discussion was: Keep.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gianolibrad'oro.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • According to [1], it seems the book was published with this same cover from its first edition in 1910, which would mean the design is PD-old. (Without that, I agree we would be dealing with a "non-free book cover" situation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be valid fair use, so fix the paperwork, rather than deleting a useful image. This has been explained/discussed elsewhere, but Ronhjones has apparently not bothered to listen to what anybody else said. If you look at book articles in Wikipedia, you will find many covers available under fair use. This appears to be a settled matter of policy. I don't understand the bull-in-china shop approach. If the image needs a fair use rationale, how about being helpful (that's what administrators are supposed to be) and try to fix it? Jehochman Talk 13:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble about this is that the image had in fact been correctly tagged as non-free book cover at one point, but the uploader removed that tag and was extremely insistent on the (incorrect) PD-self description instead [2][3], failing to realize the status of the photograph as a derivative work. None of the editors involved up to now seem to have considered the PD-old solution, which I believe makes the issue moot. In the absence of this information, this PUF nomination was indeed the correct step to get the – otherwise clearly incorrect – PD-self tag corrected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2-D work of art originally published pseudonymously prior to 1923 (in fact in 1910) seems unlikely to have any residual copyright in the USA. Giano is therefore free to make a reproduction, which is bound to be in the public domain in the USA. It may be worth noting that the publishers, Collegio Araldico, was founded in 1853 and seems to have adopted the crown of Italy/Savoy as the principal device in its emblem. It is quite dubious that the crown was ever able to be copyrighted by Collegio Araldico in the first place, although it may have fallen into the public domain in Italy by the time Collegio Araldico made use of it. --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of a pseudo speedy is to give the uploader 7 days to deal with the problem(s) and put in the correct license. A fair use is probably fine (there are plenty of non-free book covers on WP, I have no issue with fair use), it may be old - but there's no detail on the image page to confirm that, I assume the uploader would know when his copy was published and was it first published in the US? - I was viewing it as an Italian book. When I first tagged it ([4]) it was an image of a book claiming to be a 3D image because it was not just the cover and claiming I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain - If User:Giano was the copyright holder then he would need to release it under OTRS. It obviously not a 3D image in the terms of copyright law, it's still a book cover. Before I added my first tag it had This file has been identified as a priority candidate in the January 2012 Move to Commons Drive (which is why I found it - I was part of the drive, which moved about 16,000 images last month) - If one of the movers had moved this last month, would commons would leave it so, I suspect not. Therefore it makes sense to get the correct templates now - either fair use OR free media which will be fine when moved to commons.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the problem here? Giano took a picture of his copy of the book - he doesn't need to go through bloody OTRS to release his copyright in the photo. The design cannot be copyright as it was originally published in 1910. The fact that the publisher has reprinted an old design on this issue of the book does not remove the design from the public domain. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (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.

File:Richie Mensah.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richie Mensah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Avril Lavigne showing off a new hairstyle of hers.jpg

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 as F4 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avril Lavigne showing off a new hairstyle of hers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Rajendra lahiri.jpeg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rajendra lahiri.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Santa Ana Volcano.USAF.C-130.2.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Ana Volcano.USAF.C-130.2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:EN Isbanir Fossa.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:EN Isbanir Fossa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Billy Singleton.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billy Singleton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:MIT-Green-Building.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MIT-Green-Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Anne Triola & John Wayne photo - Without Reservations.jpg

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 discussion was: Withdrawn.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anne Triola & John Wayne photo - Without Reservations.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

* Template says "Without a copyright notice" but file itself says "Copyright 1945" :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image uploader requested I comment here. He would like to know if the image is eligible to be licensed under {{PD-US-not renewed}} per the information given at a similar image, File:Vivien Leigh still.jpg. Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I was reading my photograph's information. I felt I had better speak up. I have joined Wikipedia recently about two years ago as a newcomer. I don't have much experience in performing the tasks of using photos to place onto articles as some of the other Wikipedia authors have. I love the new photograph that someone added for John Coltrane - if I might add. With the subject of my Anne Triola photograph which my Mother bought me for Christmas, I was simply trying to match that up with efforts done on other 1940s film stars who have their pictures attached to their Wikipedia biographies. Actress Jane Darwell has two. One of those Darwell photos is an ebay photo just as my Mother bought the Anne Triola photo off ebay as well. The Anne Triola photo is a publicity still by RKO Studios Inc. RKO Studios Inc. became defunct in 1959, so I am thinking the photo can be applicable just as Vivien Leigh's photograph by MGM meets Wikipedia guidelines with similar characteristics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod hayes (talk • contribs)

Hi again, I have emailed RKO Studios Inc. to see about getting help with this photo as far as seeing about getting their help with copyright approval and what-not. I haven't heard back from them yet, but I am keeping my eye on my email to see that I get a reply. I may try calling them if I haven't heard back after a while of waiting. I'll try to get in touch with them the best I can. Rod Hayes (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving an additional update... I contacted RKO Studios Inc. today about using their photograph on Anne Triola's Wikipedia biography. I should get an email from them very, very soon. The conversation went well - and they seemed very pleased to know that I have taken the initiative to put together a biography on one of their many actresses which served under RKO Studios Inc. Hopefully, I will here back from them very soon. Rod Hayes (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g, I got in touch with RKO Studios Inc. That went well. Dave Woodard was very concerned about the photograph and was wanting to get in touch with you all directly. I could forward you his email. Anyway, he told me he would take it to his legal team. Now, they have told me to contact Julie Heath of Warner Bros. Anyway, I will get back in touch with you regarding this as soon as I can. Rod Hayes (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Right now, it's push, push. I got in touch with the secretary of Julie Heath with Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. I have sent her a detailed email with the photo attached. It's just sit and wait now. Brian Anderson of RKO Studios Inc. had referred me to Julie Heath, executive director of Warner Bros' Clip & Still Licensing Dept. Hopefully I will here something from her soon. Rod Hayes (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra update: I tried one last time in vain to reach Julie Heath yesterday afternoon at about 4:30 pm ET. I was letting them know that I had had problems with loading info into one of their uploader devices, but Heath's secretary told me that my email with the photograph being attached was sufficient and that Julie could gather what she needed from that. I got home after teaching the little children in PE at school this afternoon and found nothing in my yahoo email from Ms. Heath. I will hit this hard Monday, the next business day. Rod Hayes (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rod has gotten permission and will send to OTRS:Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 01:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Everything has been accounted for now. The photograph is with Ms. Julie Heath who is in charge of the clip and still licensing department for Warner Bros. and Turner Entertainment. Rod Hayes (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2012 (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.

File:Tawker and Sons. and Whiteaway Laidlaw's Co. Ltd . Buildings-1.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tawker and Sons. and Whiteaway Laidlaw's Co. Ltd . Buildings-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:SL-poster.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SL-poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Ben & Las stn 1905 & 2012.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ben & Las stn 1905 & 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:தமிழ் நண்பர்கள்.png

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:தமிழ் நண்பர்கள்.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • I don't understand what the summary means, so I'm reporting this as possibly unfree instead of reporting this as lacking permission in the event that the text in the summary field explains the copyright situation. I doubt that this is {{self}} (looks like a professional logo) and I don't think that it is ineligible for copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate renders the filename as "Tamil Friends" and the description as "Symbol of Tamil Friends". Neither source nor licensing info. The website mentioned in the file itself seems to be some kind of social networking site, and indeed is using this as a kind of logo. Evidently non-free, unless the uploader can demonstrate they are the owner of that website. No point about "non-free logo", since we don't seem to have an article about the site. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 6 February 2012 (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.

File:Josh Byrnes.jpg

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 discussion was: speedily deleted per F9. --George Ho (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josh Byrnes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Perur Temple.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perur Temple.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • The source of the file is stated as 'Dinamalar'. 'Dinamalar' is a daily magazine in Tamil Nadu India and their images are copyrighted and not free. reference (http://www.dinamalar.com). Also the photo has a watermark of the website dinamalar.com. As per wiki rules watermarked photo is not allowed Balaji (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2012 (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.

File:Msc magnifica2.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Msc magnifica2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:MSC Divina laid down.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSC Divina laid down.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.

File:Panaitolikos.jpg

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⚡ 00:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panaitolikos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_6&oldid=1141907454"