Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 11



File:Trifonov 248.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 ⚡  01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Trifonov 248.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Delete: Originally uploaded as a non-free image here but the uploader has changed the licence after it was tagged and now claims a Creative Commons sa by 1.0 licence but it is attributed to the author Roger Mastroianni without any evidence of permission. The professional image is still likely a promotional image as originally uploaded and under copyright unless permission is received to allow its use. ww2censor (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2011 (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:Daniiltrifonov.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 ⚡  01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Daniiltrifonov.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Delete: The uploader added a licence after it was tagged and now claims a Creative Commons sa by 1.0 licence but it is attributed to the author Vadim Shults without any evidence of permission. ww2censor (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2011 (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:Old Baku city.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 ⚡  02:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Old Baku city.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baku1914.jpg. File seems to be from http://www.armenica.org/. So we need a permission or some good reason why this is free. MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (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:FightGearKLM.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: Keep Correct license found. Danger (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


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


 * File was originally uploaded as PD-self but another user changed that to Free screenshot but without a source (what program was used?) and license we can not verify that the file is really free. MGA73 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The file was made using FlightGear... if you dont believe it... download it and use the 777, It was my bad to put my username on it, but it is a free screenshot from a freeware program. JcHnd (talk) 14:13, 11 january 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be easily verified that 1) this was created using FlightGear 2) FlightGear is Free. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:12, 21 January 2011 (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:Samsung wave in 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 ⚡  02:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Samsung wave in 2010.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is a vodafone promotional image of the phone, most likely the copyrights belong to vodafone not the uploader Chris Ssk  talk 11:03, 11 January 2011 (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:CCm marks.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 ⚡  02:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


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


 * File has no license. Was originally uploaded as PD-USGov but that was removed since this is not made by US gov. We need more info to keep this. Perhaps PD-ineligible would apply. MGA73 (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2011 (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:Type77.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 ⚡  22:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Type77.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Originally nominated for FFD on January 4. The discussion centered around whether the file was free or not, and was inconclusive.  Considering that it ended up being a free/non-free discussion, I am moving its venue.  As far as I can tell from the earlier discussion, the file, if free, is perfectly acceptable, and suitable for moving to Commons.  If non-free, however, it would be replaceable and suitable for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To reiterate my stand in this new discussion, I believe this falls under Article 5, subsection (2), even though this 'article' is just a picture and a title as can be seen in the URL http://wfrf.gov.cn/News_View.asp?NewsID=384 it is 'news', and should be categorized as such. Also this picture is posted on a publicly accessible government run website as news it can also be understood as a document for public education on the city of Weifang's Air Defence installation which would therefore be of an administrative nature and therefore fall under Article 5 subsection (1) which states: laws, regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations; Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is correct. I don't think an image is in itself "news". And to consider this "administrative" is ludicrous (look at the other items in the list!). Anyways the site itself is marked copyrighted. I think the government website knows better than we do whether it is copyrighted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The last thing I want is to cause anybody any trouble over copyright laws. TBH I am more familiar with the Copyright laws of the Republic of China than the People's Republic and what the PRC defines 'news' is, as stated in Article 5, subsection 2, sort of vague, the URL may contain the words 'news' twice but does that constitute 'news' as defined by the PRC's Copyright Laws? I could easily call the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Ottawa, Canada but Calliopejen1 is a very accomplished lawyer, if you could look into finding a definitive answer or possibly asking a colleague who has experience dealing with Chinese copyright laws it may be a big help to Wikipedia for similar such copyright issues involving the People's Republic of China in the future? Semi-Lobster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete: very clearly the source shows this to be a copyright image and Semi-Lobster you are just trying to wiggle around this fact by making attempts to classify the image as something it blatantly is not. Just because a picture is posted on a publicly accessible government run website does not make it a free image and educational use images are not free enough for wikipedia. It is not a law, a regulation, a resolution, a decision or orders of a state organ; and not any other document of legislative, administrative or judicial nature. ww2censor (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2011 (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:Ron4.03.38 PM.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 ⚡  23:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Ron4.03.38 PM.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Press conference naming Rivera as head coach is underway right now (5:14 pm Eastern)--not likely a free image would be out this fast. No metadata either.  Uploader also has a history of problematic uploads. Blueboy96 22:15, 11 January 2011 (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.