Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 August 21



Image:Nbc-11-interview-with-monkey.jpg

 * 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 I5 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims of fair use for screen shot is not applicable here since this article is not about the station or progam where this screen shot was taken from. Rtphokie (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:St Marys Photo 1.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image comes from here with no indication of the website owner giving permission to use the image or release it under the license given. — Aboutmovies (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree looks like a copyvio website has  St. Mary's School, All Rights Reserved. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:KariByronEIU.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The original photo at Flickr is under a noncommercial license. No evidence that the uploader here is the same person as the Flickr user. Kelly hi! 13:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Commons image showing through -Nv8200p talk 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:SaharaGanjMall.jpg

 * 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 I7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image itself has copyright water-marked on it. Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have duly changed the copyright information about the image. Jainrajat11 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been marked for deletion as a bad fair use. Now out of scope for PUI. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Ulmus_glabra_'Cornuta',_Amsterdam.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence provided for GFDL license. Kelly hi! 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Wiki-picture.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image displays copyright notice; no evidence given for free license. Kelly hi! 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:GB_4-_2006.JPG

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly hi! 15:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:CL-89.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also: Images lack an OTRS ticket, and the permission terms in the pasted e-mail are too vague - no mention is made of the GFDL, or any other, license. Kelly hi! 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:CL-289.jpg
 * Image:CL-227.jpg
 * Image:CL-84a.jpg

The request email to Bombardier specified that photographs for use in Wikipedia free content. Bombardier are the holders of the copyright being the direct control of Canadair Ltd. In the Bombardiier email they said that the attached photos were as requested. I cannot see there is any reason to consider this too vague. In addition to the email there was a discussion by telephone The holder sent these photos in full knowledge of their intended use.

I have been submitting article to wiki for three years and in this time the licence tags have changed several times, each change appearing to detract from the honest use of illustrations. DonJay (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You still need to go through the procedure at Requesting copyright permission and lodge the permission and get an OTRS ticket. This ensures that the images are released with the appropriate license for free use. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CL-89.jpg is Others deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:SusanPortrait2.png

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploader unlikely to be copyright holder. Kelly hi! 16:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Kermit_and_Ted_roosevelt.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged PD-US with no indication of why this is so. It's likely PD, but the Library of Congress record does not allow for downloads nor does it say anywhere about the photo's rights status.  howcheng  {chat} 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The images seem to have been taken in either India or Afghanistan. India has a 60 years post-publication rule, and Afghanistan has no copyright agreements with the U.S., leading me to think that this is in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That only works if it was published in India or Afghanistan first (or if the creator was Indian or Afghan and also not an employee of the Roosevelts). Otherwise, U.S. law would apply.  howcheng  {chat} 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And not a member of the U.S. military or government. And there was a copyright notice. And it was renewed. Consider that both Roosevelt brothers were members of the military (Ted jr was assistant secretary of the Navy). As you mention, the image is likely in the public domain, and the chain of events where it isn't in the public domain strain credulity (to put it mildly). IronGargoyle (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think the copyright status is known as The Library of Congress generally does not own rights to material in its collection and nothing shows on the image record. I certainly cant be tagged pd before 1923 when it was published in 1926. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to dispute that the pre-1923 tag is obviously wrong. I just think that, because it was taken in India/Afghanistan, it's almost certainly in the public domain for other reasons. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

--- Deleted. No evidence of public domain. Only likely which is not good enough. Garion96 (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:407th Brigade Support Battalion Distinctive Unit Insignia.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because the design of the badge can be considered public domain, does not mean the photo can be. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion they are non-creative reproductions of 2-D art... but I know others would disagree with me there. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Lcb logo 2006.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is claimed to be released under a CC license and that it is self-made which is highly unlikely given that the image is a corporate logo and appears to be either a direct copy or shrunk version of the logo GIF taken from the internet Whpq (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A larger version appears here http://www.arts-hamburg.de/referenzen/index.html it looks like it should be non-free logo and a have a non-free use rationale. Although the article it is used in only has an infobox and one line of text so it may not survive. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.