Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 July 1



Image:Unexpected3.jpg
There is something very suspect about this image if you examine the bottom and bottom-right corner. Evidence of unskilled photomanipulation? Likely that this is yet *another* fake album cover and thus a copyvio of the original photographer's work. Viewing uploader's deleted contribs also reveals several previous attempts to introduce obviously false album covers into WP. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 - Image was deleted and is now deletion review. Please make further comments at that page. -- Kelly hi! 04:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:BobHeadshot.jpg
Professional photograph, most likely non-free. ViperSnake151 13:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why was this image deleted? The vague suspicion that the image was "most likely non-free" simply because it was of professional quality is far from proof that the image actually was non-free and the deletion of the image based solely upon this misguided suspicion implies that professional quality images are not permitted on Wikipedia even if they do have a valid license attached, as this image did. For the record, I approached the staff at Bob Baldwin's office regarding this, while I was there to receive a medal. They don't know who the uploader is but they said there was no copyright on the image and weren't at all concerned about it being used on Wikipedia. The image was actually a better quality and larger version than used on either the Parliament of Australia website or Baldwin's own website so it's more than likely that the uploader actually was the copyright holder. There is really no justification for deleting this image given the complete absence of any proof that the licence wasn't as indicated. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:44, 15 July 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:F&HBillboard.jpg
 Starczamora (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Angel Locsin2.jpg
 Starczamora (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:TU60 exploded.jpg
This image is identical to one used at to promote this product and the image incorporates the logo of the 'True Utility' company. It is highly unlikely to be in the public domain--Rossheth | Talk to me 18:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thomas Barclay.jpg
The current copyright tag is clearly not possible, as the author can not be certain to have released the image into the public domain if the author is unidentified. 1930-ish seems rather late for there to have been 70 years after the death of the photographer. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)