Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 August 5
August 5
[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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication from the source website that this image is PD, CA tag says works of CA government are not PD. B (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no metadata, resolution and pixelation of image make this appear to be a screenshot Skier Dude (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From striation appears to be a scan - no source for base picture Skier Dude (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no metadata, bad cropping, slight pixelation makes me think this is a screencapture, no source provided (n. b. this uploader's images all appear to be from different sources/cameras/scans) Skier Dude (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree it appears to be a screenshot crop. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no metadata, appears to be a publicity shot, no source provided (n. b. this uploader's images all appear to be from different sources/cameras/scans) Skier Dude (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no metadata, appears to be a profesional "runway" shot, no source provided (n. b. this uploader's images all appear to be from different sources/cameras/scans) Skier Dude (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely this is a user-authored image B (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a logo for a fraternity Alpha Theta Sigma. If it is, it's unlikely to be a user-authored image B (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. Unlikely a user-authored image B (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user is the copyright holder. B (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (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: Kept per IronGargoyle. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the fraternity dates from 1918, this would have been first published outisde the united states prior to 1923 and thus in the public domain per {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purports to be a fraternity logo. If so, it's unlikely the user owns the copyright. B (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a derivative work of the Disney film The Little Mermaid. Even if the user drew it, we can't use it. B (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a derivative of the Simpsons. Even if the user drew it, we can't use it. B (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a photoshop of a Google maps image. If so, it is copyrighted. B (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader says "The photo is from promotional materials and is being used in conjunction with demonstrating what a Malibu Rehab looks like." That implies that this is not a user-authored image. B (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Description says image is public domain, does not give a basis. I have no idea what the term of copyright is in Guinea, but the description says this photo was taken in 1962, so it's highly questionable. B (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2009 (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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is video game box art and displays trademarked logos and imagery owned and distributed by the game's developer and publisher. The uploader, however, claims the image is self-made. It is possible that the image was obtained from another source and is just improperly licensed. -- Commdor {Talk} 08:16, 5 August 2009 (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: Delete, insufficient evidence it's really PD.
Terms listed are a dead link, Thus no indication of PD relase which given it's MSDN seems unlikely Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2005 version of the terms of use page can be found via the Internet Archive. Some interesting stuff in the "MATERIALS PROVIDED TO MICROSOFT OR POSTED AT ANY MICROSOFT WEB SITE." section. Basicaly users submitting images "agree" to grant a wide open license to use, modify and repost their content, at least on the "Services" themselves. I'm not fluent enough in legalese to determine if that amounts to a "any purpose for anyone" style release or if it's just limited to use on the MSDN sites themselves. Probably moot though since a photo of a Microsoft developer at a presentation would most likely have been published by Microsoft itself rater than a random user on their forums, can't rely tell where it came from due to lack of source wich is reason enough to delete anyway. --Sherool (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those same terms are at http://channel9.msdn.com/Terms/. Yes, you are correct that if this image was user-submitted content, it would be acceptable for us to use. The template used, {{Copyrighted free use}}, was actually a correct representation of this license. Sadly, a really dumb decision was made a few years ago to redirect it - it was discussed somewhere on one of the image tag pages, but if you look back in the history for this template, it accurately described the license. In the US, there really is no such thing as releasing your work into the public domain - you really still own the copyright and are just granting anyone a very wide-open license to use it. Even so, our template says "public domain" and putting words into someone's mouth who never intended to say "pubic domain" is a rather bad thing. All that said, the $64K question is, was this image a user-submitted image or not? It looks like it is a partial screencap from [1] (the video at that link doesn't work for me, but [2] is a direct link to it which you can view in Windows media player). So we know who took it. At [3], he certainly seems to imply he is a Microsoft employee. My interpretation of the license is that it would NOT apply to Microsoft employees posting work products on the message board, so my answer would be no, we cannot use it. --B (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That version of the video at least is far too grainy and washed out to be the direct source of that image (though I guess it's possible the image was captured from a uncomplressed version of the video, I didn't watch all of it to see if any frames match up but the camera guy moved around a lot so it's possible). I don't think it's a huge problem that {{Copyrighted free use}} was changed to a PD tag, the tag as it was had horrible misuse problems (people would reason "well it's copyrighted but I didn't pay for it so this must be the right tag", at some point at least you would be hard pressed to actualy find a legitemate image that used the tag (and it's probably nowhere near cleaned up yet)), the net meanig of the tag is the same and it does contain the disclaimer that where direct release to PD is not possible the author release all rights to fullest extent possible by law in any case. --Sherool (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those same terms are at http://channel9.msdn.com/Terms/. Yes, you are correct that if this image was user-submitted content, it would be acceptable for us to use. The template used, {{Copyrighted free use}}, was actually a correct representation of this license. Sadly, a really dumb decision was made a few years ago to redirect it - it was discussed somewhere on one of the image tag pages, but if you look back in the history for this template, it accurately described the license. In the US, there really is no such thing as releasing your work into the public domain - you really still own the copyright and are just granting anyone a very wide-open license to use it. Even so, our template says "public domain" and putting words into someone's mouth who never intended to say "pubic domain" is a rather bad thing. All that said, the $64K question is, was this image a user-submitted image or not? It looks like it is a partial screencap from [1] (the video at that link doesn't work for me, but [2] is a direct link to it which you can view in Windows media player). So we know who took it. At [3], he certainly seems to imply he is a Microsoft employee. My interpretation of the license is that it would NOT apply to Microsoft employees posting work products on the message board, so my answer would be no, we cannot use it. --B (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A JPEG version of a Pakistani law text from 1984. Uploader tagged it as GFDL wich I'm fairly confident is not true. I know a lot of countries do not claim copyright on things like law texts, but I have no idea what the status of such texts in Pakistan is, hence listing here. Sherool (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sherool, It is copy free available on internet. There is no Pakistani law which prohibits its use. Imranahsanmirza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranahsanmirza (talk • contribs) 10:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Free on the internet" does not equal released under the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later. Where on the internet did you find it exactly anyway? As I mentiond above I though there was a possibility that Pakistani Government works where public domain, but that appears to not be the case, per Copyright Ordinance, 1962 "22.—(1) Copyright in a Government work shall, where Government is the first owner of the copyright therein, subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.", so this will be under copyright untill 2035 per Ordinance No. XXXIV of 1962 in Pakistani copyright law. --Sherool (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2009 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as No Permission, background is unsourced and tineye gives 5-6 matches :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (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: Deleted as no proper source. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NFR but PD tag - Sort it out people :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (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⚡ 05:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This photo is credited in a couple of books (Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft since 1913 by Oliver Tapper and British Aeroplanes 1914-18 by J M Bruce) as Imperial War Museum photo Q66206. It is unclear who took the photo and therefore whether it is PD-GOV-UK or not.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NFR but PD tag ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (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⚡ 05:26, 12 August 2009 (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: Wrong forum there is no dispute about the non-free nature of the image. Anyway it has a rationale now. If you still feel that it does not satisfy the non-free policy tag it with {{subst:dfu|your reason here}} or list it on Wikipedia:Non-free content review instead. --Sherool (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delet template removede by uploader. fair use rational incomplete. Alankc (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I attempted to correct the problem, but the edit was reverted. The image is indeed free. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2009 (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.
This logo does not consist of "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" ViperSnake151 Talk 20:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this discussion for deleting the image? The logo is still needed for use in the articles, and a fair use rationale can be added. Does the license need to be changed to remove the public domain tag? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite agree. Change to fair use logo, and add {{logo fur}}. -- Jheald (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I put it on PUF to gauge discussion on whether this would be PD or not. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:16, 6 August 2009 (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.