Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 9



File:Dalecarlia-map.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 ⚡  01:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Dalecarlia-map.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image is from "Windows Live Local," which is a non-free map resource. Even if the satellite images are from the USGS (a fact of which I am skeptical), the graphic overlays are copyrighted. GrapedApe (talk) 03:34, 9 October 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:Rosy Senanayake Ralley1.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 ⚡  04:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Rosy Senanayake Ralley1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Tagged with Non-free newspaper image, though the image is (presumbably) just an image in a newspaper, not a newspaper itself. Acather96 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Identical image has been raised at Possibly_unfree_files/2010_October_7 and that image is now the one used in the article, the uploader has orphaned this one. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 10 October 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:A little death surprise.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 ⚡  07:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:A little death surprise.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image is from a short film (presumably, as its sole link is to A Little Death: A Modern Day Fairytale). A source is provided, but only to the actual image itself, so I can't tell wether the image's 'self cc-by' tag is valid. Acather96 (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete via F3: One of the same sources as [[File:6rald surprise.jpg]], which was deleted October 7. This was upped October 9 by the same user; the source website states all material is licensed via CC by-nc-sa. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:49, 13 October 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:Cityrailsign.svg

 * 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: no consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Cityrailsign.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted logo. Also nominated the transwikied version at Commons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find this image on the City Rail website. Do you have a source that confirms that this 2kB image is a "high-resolution" reproduction? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SVGs are high-resolution by default (they're infinite resolution). The tram icon is quite evidently derived from the one currently visible on the Adelaide Metro website right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, it might be that the Adelaide Metro one now is derived from this one that was uploaded two years ago, which itself was derived from File:Cityrailsign.jpg that User:JROBBO uploaded two years before that, when there don't seem to be any icons on the Adelaide Metro site. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the Internet Archive does not have full copies of the related Metro Transport page from 2006, but that too contains a similar icon currently (I tracked that down via file:Sydneymlrsign.png). I'm not sure that we can take it on faith that it is the metro company which is violating Wikipedia's copyright and not the other way around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of the images on that page is anything like this image. File:Sydneymlrsign.png is similar but again, placed side by side the images are significantly different. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep using PD-ineligible instead.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 16:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not PD-ineligible. That applies to designs that consist solely of text in preexisting fonts or simple geometric shapes--this is a design which someone drew, and there is definite creativity. Chick Bowen 05:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, if this and the images below are not identical to the original, than they are not under the original copyright. However, that would seem to limit their encyclopedic value. Chick Bowen 22:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but convert license to PD-ineligible as it fails to meet the threshold of originality required by copyright laws. This image is too simple; I could easily reproduce that using Paint.NET or Microsoft Paint without even looking at it while I'm creating. Fleet Command (talk) 07:30, 21 November 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:SydneyMetro.svg

 * 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: no consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * File:SydneyMetro.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted logo. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As per above, I'm having trouble finding a source for this that confirms that it's a reproduction. Do you have a source for comparision? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, the Adelaide Metro website's front page currently displays what appears to be an exact duplication of the tram icon in this image. We cannot assume that it isn't copyrighted, and this image does not currently contain sufficient attribution for non-free use (especially of an SVG). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're looking at different pages but the two icons seem significantly different to me. The Adelaide image doesn't have rails, but there is a lot more detail in the tram itself, including the bar on the roof, which isn't in this image. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary that the image be a complete duplicate: even if it is an edited derivative (which I think there to be sufficient cause to believe), attribution and a non-free rationale have to be provided. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it's even a derivative. They're significantly different enough to make them two completely different images. Side by side they're nothing alike. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how it's a derivative of the Adelaide Metro website's icon either. The two are completely different, and do not resemble one another with the exception that they're both showing a metro rail carriage from the front-view. It is a simple icon used to depict metro rail, what else do you expect a metro rail carriage to look like? --Damaster98 (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not copyrighted. This logo is ineligible for copyright because it does not meet threshold of originality. Note that such a similar simple icon is used all over the world for trains, including France, Germany and Japan on various things. I recommend changing the license tag to pd-ineligible. Fleet Command (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep using Fleet Command suggestions.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 16:56, 27 October 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:AdMetTrainTransAdelaide.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: no consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Evident duplication of logo from Adelaide Metro iconography with no sourcing provided Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Image appears to be derived from File:Cityrailsign.jpg, uploaded by User:JROBBO on 30 April 2006 with no evidence after a search that Adelaide Metro is the copyright owner of the image. Images used by Adelaide Metro don't appear on its website until well after File:Cityrailsign.jpg was uploaded. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not copyrighted. This logo does is not eligible for copyright protection because it does not meet Threshold of originality as it is merely made out of simple shapes. I recommend changing license tag to pd-textlogo. Fleet Command (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep using PD-ineligible instead.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 16:57, 27 October 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:AdMetRailLogo.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 discussion was: no consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


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


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted iconography Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Image appears to be derived from File:Cityrailsign.jpg, uploaded by User:JROBBO on 30 April 2006 with no evidence after a search that Adelaide Metro is the copyright owner of the image. Images used by Adelaide Metro don't appear on its website until well after File:Cityrailsign.jpg was uploaded. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not copyrighted. This image is not eligible for copyright protection since it fails to meet Threshold of originality as it is composed of simple shapes. I recommend changing the logo license tag to pd-textlogo. Fleet Command (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep using PD-ineligible instead.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 16:57, 27 October 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:HiFrequencyStationAdelaide.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 ⚡  13:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted logo Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete File summary states "Taken from the Gawler Train Timetable. Created by the Adelaide Metro." This appears to be a copyvio. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete --ARTEST4ECHO (talk 16:57, 27 October 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:AdMetClosed.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: no consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


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


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted iconography Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Image appears to be derived from File:Cityrailsign.jpg, uploaded by User:JROBBO on 30 April 2006 with no evidence after a search that Adelaide Metro is the copyright owner of the image. Images used by Adelaide Metro don't appear on its website until well after File:Cityrailsign.jpg was uploaded. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not copyrighted. This image is not eligible for copyright protection since it fails to meet Threshold of originality as it is composed of simple shapes. I recommend changing the logo license tag to pd-textlogo. Fleet Command (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep using PD-ineligible instead.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 16:57, 27 October 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:AdMetTram.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: no consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


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


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted iconography Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Archive.org doesn't have a page dated around the same time as this image was uploaded, but the 22 August 2008 archive (ie before this image was uploaded) shows the tram icon to be the same as used today. This is different to the tram icon used in this image. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From a very quick inspection, it is plausible that it is a simplified derivation of the monorail icon on that page. Presently there is no attribution at all of that source in this image file's metadata. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The two icons seem very different to me. I don't see how you could claim that this one was derived from that. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, I'm referring to this image. There is certainly room for doubt, but it's worth considering the number of related non-free derivatives uploaded by the same user from images on that website. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The images still look significantly different and, based on the history of icon use by Adelaide Metro that I've been able to glean from archive.org, it appears that Adelaid Metro has derived at least some of its images from File:Cityrailsign.jpg, uploaded on 22 January 2006. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not copyrighted. This image is not eligible for copyright protection since it fails to meet Threshold of originality as it is composed of simple shapes. I recommend changing the logo license tag to pd-textlogo. Fleet Command (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep using PD-ineligible instead.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 16:57, 27 October 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:HiFrequencyStationAdelaide.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 ⚡  13:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted iconography Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete File summary states "Taken from the Gawler Train Timetable", so appears to be a copyvio. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 17:02, 27 October 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:AdMetTramTransAdelaide.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: no consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


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


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted iconography Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Image appears to be based on File:Cityrailsign.jpg, uploaded by User:JROBBO on 30 April 2006 but tram icon has clearly been copied from Adelaide Metro website, where it was present well before this image was created, at least as early as 4 October 2006. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not copyrighted. This image is not eligible for copyright as it does not meet Threshold of originality; it is composed of simple shapes. I recommend changing the logo license tag to pd-textlogo.
 * No way--it's a picture of a train, not a triangle. Not eligile for PD-text.--GrapedApe (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then certainly pd-ineligible. It's way too simple to meet threshold of originality anyways. Fleet Command (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not too simple: you can tell that its a picture of a train, can't you? Doesn't that mean that there was some artistic effort in the image?  Just because its small and not that good of an image, doesn't make it ineligible for copyright.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it does not seem to me like that. It is too simple a sketch of a train. While I was reviewing files moved to Commons, I have encountered more complex images that where not eligible for copyright. Fleet Command (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep using PD-ineligible instead.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 16:57, 27 October 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:WoodvilleRailwayStationLayout.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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * High-resolution reproduction of copyrighted iconography Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a railway track layout. What is it a reproduction of? Do you have a source? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. On closer inspection, that the file has changed since the original upload suggests that the uploader has access to source. Happy to withdraw this one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not eligible for copyright protection since it fails to comply with Threshold of originality, due to its use of simple geometry; not even a single icon is used in the image. I advise changing the license tag to pd-shape. Fleet Command (talk) 06:18, 10 October 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:HeartInside.gif

 * 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 ⚡  09:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:HeartInside.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Looks like a scan from a textbook, not self-made. The resolution is just too low for that. NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:01, 9 October 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:Han Sanoi.PNG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Han Sanoi.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image apears in a blog http://vietnamesegod.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html from 2006 so is probably not the work of the uploader. Has no metadata and is only 266x184. MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 9 October 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:Cancilla fillaris.pdf
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  03:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Cancilla fillaris.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Gone to hell.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])
 * File:Cover2omni200.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs])


 * The description reads ' Cover for OMNI magazine 1985', and I highly doubt the self made claim or that the uploader is the copyright holder. Acather96 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The uploader left this on my talk page:
 * Omni magazine used original works of art for covers and articles. The work entitled Cancilla Fillaris is my own work that Omni magzine used for their cover. In fact, the second page of the upload clearly states that the work on the cover is by Rallé. This work is registered in the United States Copyright Office with the registration # VA 1-726-887. I hope that this clarifies the confusion regarding the painting Cancilla Fillaris. Sincerely, Scotchtape1000 (Rallé) P.S. I intend to upload another cover of Omni and would appriciate your cooperation in this matter

Acather96 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See also File:Gone to hell.jpg, which has the same problem. The artwork may well be the author's own, but the magazine cover isn't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also File:Cover2omni200.jpg. Even if the magazine covers are acceptable, we would still need verifiable permission for the artwork, which we don't have yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's possible. Otherwise that may be a tall task for a 1985 based magazine. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: The magazine covers are under copyright and were not created by the uploader. The underlying art may be the creation of the uploader and that being the case there should be no issues with them uploading a copy of the original art and submitting an OTRS that covers all of their art. the untouched originals already exist at Wikimedia Commons (File:Sunhell001.jpg and File:Madonna Without a Child.jpg) so these are not needed. And there is no critical commentary on the covers, and the underlying art is freely available, adding a claim of fair use would fail Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The uploader has directly claimed that in fact he did create them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * reply: The underlying artwork yes, but not the actual Magazine covers. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. If anyone has pdf editing software, we could crop out the offending parts. And some of the cover looks like it may be pd-ineligible. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 13 October 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:Parthe Sarker.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  04:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * no xdata and user upload previously many copyvio images - Jayanta Nath (Talk 18:04, 9 October 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:Blackpool jelgava plakats.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Blackpool jelgava plakats.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image unlikly created by author, all of the images upload by the user are not orginal creations. Svgalbertian (talk) 19:36, 9 October 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:File_name.ext
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace " " with the actual name of the file. 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:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:File name.ext ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

This painting entitled Cancilla Fillaris is my own work. This image has been registered (May 24, 2010) in the United Stated Copyright Office under my name=Rallé, Master of the Town of Consuls with the following registration number: VA 1726887. This work was first published September 1985 on the cover of OMNI magazine. Sincerely, Scotchtape1000--Scotchtape1000 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC), October 9, 2010, 5:26pm.
 * reason Scotchtape1000 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 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:Koyunbaba Turbesi.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Uploader has two copyvios, not sure about this one Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:39, 9 October 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:Tekmen der.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  03:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * probably copyvio. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:59, 9 October 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:City duma.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 - Ghrilandajo has provided sufficient enough logic for public domain status. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


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


 * We do not have enough information about this photograph as is to establish its PD status. the PD-50 is simply too vague. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PD-RusEmpire, no? A postcard with text in Russian and a French translation hardly seems likely to be a post-Bolshevik Revolution creation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pre-1917 Russian orthography also clearly indicates the date. Keep. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the possibility that and older type of typography was used for a card published post-revolution? Or, for that matter, that the item was republished within 30 days of the revolution? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First question: one would be sent to a gulag for publishing anything in a tsarist script. Second question: in the chaos following the revolution, nothing was published save revolutionary pamphlets. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The gulag for a script type? I'm guessing Lenin wasn't a big believer in freedom of speech. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is simple not enough information about this photograph as is to show it has PD status. All other tags are based on assumptions that it was take post-Bolshevik Revolution, which has not been established.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk 17:06, 27 October 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:Instruments lavoisier.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * See above, same reasoning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 9 October 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.