Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 January 17



File:Bizans Sentezi.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 ⚡  21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Image is tagged GFDL-self, but it is highly unlikely the uploader is the copyright owner. Also an edit summary by the uploader says, “Kattok is our oganization and free of charge everythink to dowload and educational, medya use” But even if KATTOK has the right to license the image, educational permission is not an acceptable license. —teb728 t c 04:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay if you want to delete go delete! I change tagg what do you want from me tell me I do it! The image is important document for Wikipedia teach me which tagg should be there? --Deepism (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You ask what tag the file should have; I will try to help you, but the answer depends on the answer to several questions. Who owns the copyright? What right does Wikipedia have to use it? And how do you propose to use it on Wikipedia. It is quite possible (indeed likely) that there is no appropriate tag.
 * If I understand correctly, the artist, Neslihan Oner, owns the copyright. Am I correct? Any permission to use the image must come from the copyright owner, and the permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. Wikipedia is a non-profit educational organization, but Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia or only for non-profit use or only for educational use. If the copyright owner is willing to grant such a free license, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the permission.
 * Without such a free license the file could be used only under Wikipedia’s highly restrictive non-free content policy, which depends on how the file is used. In particular it would have to be used in an article, and its use would have to be essential to understanding that article. I notice that you have not attempted to add the file to any article, but you have placed what appears to be a KATTOK press release on the file description page. This press release does not count as an article.
 * As for a tag: If the copyright owner licenses the image under a free license, you would use the tag corresponding to that license. If it is used under the non-free content policy, you would use the non-free 2D art tag and add also a non-free use rationale naming the article where it is used and why the use conforms to the non-free use policy. If the owner does not grant a free license, and if it does not qualify under WP:NFCC, then I am sorry but there is no appropriate tag. —teb728 t c 00:30, 21 January 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:Untitled-79.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 ⚡  21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Image is tagged GFDL-self, but it is highly unlikely the uploader is the artist Yucel Donmez—particularly since he refers to the artist in the third person. —teb728 t c 04:50, 17 January 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:Tugra.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 ⚡  21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File is tagged GFDL-self, but it is highly unlikely the uploader is the artist Yucel Donmez—particularly since he refers to the artist in the third person. Also file is damaged. —teb728 t c 05:12, 17 January 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:Tura.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 ⚡  21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File is tagged PD-release, but there is no reason to believe the artist Yucel Donmez has released it—especially in the light of incorrect tagging of other works by the artist. Also file is damaged. —teb728 t c 05:26, 17 January 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:Pamelafreeman.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 ⚡  21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No evidence permission was granted to use image under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 13:58, 17 January 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.