Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 20



File:Juanbarbas1982.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  02:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Juanbarbas1982.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image sourced to a George Herringshaw, no earthly idea why this would be in public domain. Mosmof (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - According to the image licence tag, the copyright registry on this image has now expired. In Argentina, an image enters the public domain if at least 25 years have passed since the image was created and/or at least 20 years have passed since it was first published. Since it was apparently first created and published in 1982 (28 years ago), it seems that the image is now in the public domain. – PeeJay 08:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But the license is only valid for images originally published in Argentina or copyrighted to an Argentine source. There's no evidence of such, since the photo was taken in Spain by a British photographer. --Mosmof (talk) 04:16, 3 June 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:Cuciuffo.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  02:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Image appears to belong to a Mexican outlet, Argentine copyright law should not apply. Mosmof (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even though it was likely taken in Argentina? This is an Argentine soccer player after all. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it was taken at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico. It could have been a media outlet from any country or an international news agency. --Mosmof (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, then by all means delete it. Didn't know it took place in Mexico. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:58, 3 June 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:Pac10-Uniform-AZ-ProPac.PNG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  06:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Pac10-Uniform-AZ-ProPac.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uniforms of some kind. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 06:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a hypothetical variation of their uniforms. No part of the current design, save for the logo, is taken from their current uniforms. Other users on here have uploaded hypothetical uniforms for other teams using the same justification I have without a problem. --Kevin W. 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this going to be addressed? --Kevin W. 17:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello? --Kevin W. 01:53, 2 June 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:Somb 2.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Somb 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * 2D art of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 06:59, 20 May 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:Somb.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * 2D art of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 06:59, 20 May 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:Juniper Tar 2010.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Juniper Tar 2010.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Files for deletion/2010 May 16; studio style photo of a band. Likely copyrighted.  No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder, judging by the description provided on the file description page.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 07:09, 20 May 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:Red-panda-Houston-Zoo.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  05:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Red-panda-Houston-Zoo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Looks like it was taken by the zoo. The uploader needs to prove that he took it. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I mention in the previous day's deletion listings, I think some good faith should be assumed here. The editor doesn't have any history of suspicious uploads and there is metadata present in the image. The "too high quality" argument doesn't hold water. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - Tineye finds a smaller version of the image used over a month ago here. I think it's likely that the uploader is the original photographer, but we may want to get an OTRS request involved to ensure it's his/hers to release and not a work-for-hire situation. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've tagged the file with di-no permission per ESkog's finding above. The file will be deleted a week from now if no permission is received. — ξ xplicit  00:52, 4 June 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:FacultyofEngineeringUOP.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * The image has previously been published here, and there's no evidence that User:Upulcranga created it. Theleftorium (talk) 16:51, 20 May 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:Morobar.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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. — ξ xplicit  19:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Product /packaging artwork - Not self as claimed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that the principle of Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. may apply here. The packaging design is predominantly functional, and any remaining creative elements are de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with IronGargoyle, Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits applies, we can keep this. I've added the trademark tag to this image. —RP88 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 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:Siwon.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Image appears to be watermarked (albeit in Korean). Unlikely uploader created. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:18, 20 May 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.