Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 January 29



File:Limited Edition Disturbed Indestructible.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. 

Deleted. Blatant copyvio. No fair use rationale or corresponding licensing tag seemed forthcoming.-Andrew c [talk] 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This image contains artwork owned by the record label or the graphic artist. A fair use version exists here. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This photograph is meant only to depict the package as a whole, and not the artwork solely. The photo is meant to provide a visual view of the package, as a whole, so that the reader can fully comprehend what is included in the package, rather than just reading the list of things that are included on that template. Therefore, the aforementioned fair use version does not, in fact, depict the same thing as the one being claimed as none-free. The claimed "fair use" version is meant only to depict the album artwork, while the one being proposed un-free is meant to depict the package as a whole; the CD, the booklet, the case the CD comes in. Ultimately, this image is not meant to depict only the copyrighted artwork, but the package as a whole. So I believe that the photograph is completely justified. Might need to add a fair use rationale, though, right? -- The Guy  complain edits 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The photo does depict the artwork, however, making it a non-free image. It therefore requires a fair use rationale. For the article Indestructible (Disturbed album), fair use cannot be justified (which is why I think this image should be deleted). Fair use requires minimum use of images. To have two additional photographs, both of which show the album cover which is also depicted at the top of the article violates WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This particular photo does not depict any album artwork, actually, as it is the limited edition of the album, which featured different cover artwork, which is not depicted in this photograph. The thing you might be seeing is the VIP pass which allows access to "special Disturbed events through 2009", as that does feature the band's mascot, The Guy. That is not, however, the album artwork; it is a small sample of it used in a VIP pass. Again; these photographs are meant to display the contents of the package, not just the artwork included (i.e. the VIP pass, part of the package).  The other photograph, however, does depict the artwork, yes, but is not meant to. I have already explained this. One thing that I would like to question is this: What makes Halo 3's use of a photo such as this, or this, featured in a similar template, but also lacking fair use rationales, OK, but the use of them here isn't?  Halo 3 is a very mainstream game, and a featured article, and it seems very unlikely that those photos would slip through the system, especially during one of the many reviews of the articles, by peers, or FAC-goers. So I am simply wondering what makes their use fine, but a similar use of these photos not? EDIT: I just noticed in the now-expired FAC, you mentioned that Halo 3 did not have an image review, but you don't think those are legitimate, either. Just wanted to note that I read that AFTER typing this, rather than before. -- The Guy  complain edits 00:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that this photo is depicting copyrighted artwork. It requires a fair use rationale. The artwork is nearly identical to the album cover so there is no need to replicate it in the article, so I think writing a fair use rationale would be very difficult. Awadewit (talk) 11:23, 4 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:Standard Indestructible Disturbed artwork.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. 

Deleted. Same as above, copyvio.-Andrew c [talk] 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) This image contains art owned by the graphic artist or the record company. Fair use version exists here. Awadewit (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"This image contains art owned by the graphic artist or the record company." So does the one claim is ok. Is it breach of copyright when a photographer or tv crew video a companys symbol?

"Fair use version exists here" How do you claim that for one its just part of another and fair use can not be determined by looking at the material, it has somthing to do with ... oh yer the USE of it!--Meiamme (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument here is the same as the image proposed above; the aforementioned free photo does not depict the package, and therefore would not significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic should it be used in the template that the others are being used in. I therefore believe that this is fair use. -- The Guy complain edits 02:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. (If you believe this is fair use material, it is unclear to me why you uploaded the image as a PD photo and have not yet added a fair use rationale.) Awadewit (talk) 11:25, 4 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:Image_name.ext

 * 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace " " with the actual name of the image. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after " ". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUI or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

reason MRDU08 (talk) 03:19, 29 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:Lupevelez2.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 ⚡  14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploader claims to have created the image a few days ago, but the description says the photo is from 1938. Wronkiew (talk) 05:49, 29 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:Parking ticketmelbourne.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 ⚡  06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that the state of Victoria is the copyright holder of this Stifle (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly improperly tagged as PD self. Would Template:PD-text work? Or is the layout and design of the ticket unique enough for copyright?-Andrew c [talk] 01:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, this is a copyvio. -Andrew c [talk] 19:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So.... Why is this still open? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:48, 9 March 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:Bushportrait.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 ⚡  14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See --  lucasbfr  talk 21:14, 29 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:Clash5.png

 * 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 ⚡  14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Image is NOT owned by uploader or in the public domain, despite PD tag, and this image as fair use is not necessary in the Clash of the Titans article &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:23, 29 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:Babe_D._Zaharias_photo_IMG_1063.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 ⚡  14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The uploader took the photo, however there is no information about who painted the paining he photographed. Sherool (talk) 23:36, 29 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.