Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 16



File:Labadie2007.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 ⚡  01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Labadie2007.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This image is likely a copyvio as it is credited to AP in the German magazine Spiegel, see here: http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-50704-11.html. --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2010 (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:Flag of UST.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 ⚡  03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Flag of UST.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There is NO actually any soft copy of the flag of the University of Santo Tomas over the Internet. I just used the source as my basis to create an image depicting the flag of the University Fire 0592 (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the age of the school, the seal in the middle may be well past copyright. The split-color background isn't sufficient for copyright, IMHO. — BQZip01 —  talk
 * 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:Brindaji004121.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 ⚡  03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Brindaji004121.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Promo picture, user has history of copyright violations Hekerui (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Where is the history of violations? I'll agree it is likely, but given the person's interest in Communism in India, I can see how they might indeed have taken a picture themselves. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:22, 22 January 2010 (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:Doloresdelrio107.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 ⚡  03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Doloresdelrio107.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader has previously uploaded unfree images of the actress Dolores Del Rio. There is no evidence to suggest this image is user-created and it looks more like something that has been scanned from a newspaper or magazine. Rossrs (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious scan, just like File:LiliaPrado2.jpg from the same user. Hekerui (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Provide a FUR or Delete clearly a copyrighted image scanned in (newspaper probably). This person may not understand the intricacies of copyright (took me 2+ years just to understand most of the basics...) — BQZip01 —  talk 17:24, 22 January 2010 (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:Meuligoe desktop.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 ⚡  03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Meuligoe desktop.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * IS this free or not? IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can the uploader show why it is free and a page which displays the license under which this is released? — BQZip01 —  talk 17:26, 22 January 2010 (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:Meuligoe gimp.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 ⚡  03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Meuligoe gimp.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * IS this free or not? IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment See above. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:26, 22 January 2010 (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:Midori(Browser)19.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 ⚡  03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Midori(Browser)19.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Is this free or not? IngerAlHaosului (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment See above. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:27, 22 January 2010 (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:Roseville pinecone.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 discussion was: Keep; solution offered. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Roseville pinecone.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Cearmic Peice from mid 30's - Uploader claims utillity - Reffering to PUI to be sure ... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The uploader can claim "utilitarian" use on the bowl itself, but the exterior decoration is not fundtional...but...
 * Free With no copyright notice visible, this pottery is PD and should be tagged with . The photgraph in 2007 is thereby releaseable under such a license. Good on you to check though. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:33, 22 January 2010 (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:Royalplaza.jpeg

 * 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 ⚡  06:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Royalplaza.jpeg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This appears to be a scan of an old postcard, so it is unlikely that copyright holder has released this into the public domain Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More information needed but likely Retag with if the image was published before 1923. Otherwise URAA may kick in and . A source for the image is necessary to garner further information.  — BQZip01 —  talk 17:36, 22 January 2010 (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.