Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 February 2



File:Miami Beach Senior High.JPG

 * 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 this discussion was re-tag image with, as no permission is on file. Image may be deleted if OTRS confirmation isn't sent in.-Andrew c [talk] 22:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be the same as this image that appears at this site. It seems the copyright for this image belongs not to a photographer or a construction company, not the high school photography club, as claimed in the file description. Mosmof (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Mosmof and Peripitus, so that you get it once and for all. This is the picture of my school of which I took. Yes, it appears on the web page you mentioned. As i've said numerous times the images of our school were taken by our school and later given to a construction company (who is still building other areas of our school) and media like news stations and newspapers. Just because an image appears on a website doesnt give you the right to say it isn't mine and furthermore this whole "professional" picture thing. Let me remind you I'm part of a photography club we have expensive professional cameras we use to take pictures. If you need proof then call the school and ask for a student name Fredler Brave and pictures of the school. Talk to the principal directly, I'm tired of you people deleting images that were taken by us. You neither have confirmation of what claim nor of what I said. This image had been on the wikipedia site for three months without any problems before you people just come up with a website that ironically had our school picture. Fredler Brave (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that still leaves us with a few questions:
 * Has the photography club released photographs to public domain, or a similar free license?
 * When the photography club gave the photographs to the construction company, what was the license? Did the club give up the copyright? Or was it under a specific license that limited usage?
 * Could someone from the school email permissions-en (at) wikimedia org providing permission for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere? --Mosmof (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (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.

File:Castano danielle.JPG

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Webresolution shot of a philipines celebrity. No exif, its a professional quality shot and cropped for the web. Also the description says nothing about where and when the shot was taken. Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 2 February 2009 (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.

File:Plmmap1.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Scanned map of unknown source - not a user created image I think Peripitus (Talk) 09:58, 2 February 2009 (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.

File:ISP poster 12 06.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unused image that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and of lower quality/resolution, of File:ISP poster Medium-01 07.jpg. Made a nom per CSD F1 but was declined with no reason why. Also licensed via GFDL. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2009 (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.

File:Super Bowl XLIII Tickets.JPG

 * 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 as G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Although this image is tagged with a free content license, looking at this scan of a Super Bowl XLIII ticket, you can read in the fine print, "&copy; National Football League. All rights reserved." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Delete. I believe the only way that it would fall under WP:RAT is if it was either cropped to show only the face value of the ticket, or made smaller with lower resolution, with a possible "magnification" of sorts of the ticket price, as it appears in the portion of the article that speaks of ticket prices and the economic impact of the game. -- Jwinters | Talk 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Grosse (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC): I agree deleting the image if the copyright status is unclear, altough I created the image myself. Please procede the deletion of the image.
 * Delete per the nom. And there's several logos on the ticket that are subject to copyright. Could be kept under a different tag... – LATICS   talk  05:08, 3 February 2009 (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.