Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 March 20



File:LauraBenanti.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: delete. The software appears to be doing some strange things today, so the link is not turning red for whatever reason, but this discussion was closed as delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:LauraBenanti.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * New version does not appear to be "self-made". Eeekster (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Old version doesn't really either. &mdash;innotata 01:53, 28 March 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:Louisiana Monroe Warhawks workmark.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: keep. The chair wishes to thank BQZip01 for their expertise. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Louisiana Monroe Warhawks workmark.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Logo for the University of Louisiana Monroe athletics. It is tagged as PD-ineligible. I don't see any remote way that this is PD-ineligible.  It should probably be tagged as fair use, a rationale written, etc. B (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I been told in the past that wings, like in this logo, was "mere decoration" and is not eligible for copyright protection. We had a similar problem with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Florida_Atlantic_University_monogram_logo.svg and it was still kept as PD. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Logos says that for logos that are not PD by age, they are PD if they consist only of simple geometric shapes and fonts.  I would think that the wings (both here and on FAU) would go beyond that. Commons:Threshold of originality has several examples, including a very informative letter from the US copyright office stating that the Best Western logo is not copyrightable.  But I would think (in my purely non-legal-scholar opinion) that the wings would give this logo sufficient originality. --B (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally thought that too, but I been told in the past that I was wrong, wings are decoration. I will need to pull my legal documents up to see what is the real deal, but I remember talking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BQZip01 about this specific issue. I suggest his input. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

BQZip01 notified of this discussion. Hope he participates. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Awww. You guys remembered me. How sweet :-)
 * Ok, my take on this is twofold. The first is that the University itself has defined it as their wordmark, not "trademark", "image", or any other description (see source of imagery). Second, the wings themselves do not give it sufficient originality, IMHO. As stated above, the FAU logo was kept under similar pretenses as they were not of "sufficient originality". Other logos include such flair and, as such, these are embelishments, not original artwork.
 * I am not a legal scholar (more of an legal amateur who dabbles in the copyright realms), but I have looked pretty in-depth into this and believe we are on firm legal footing and the concept of de minimus applies as well. To quote the letter B described above, "copyright protects...work[s] that possess more than a de minimus quantum of creativity". Standard embellishments of text (in this case and FAU/the Philadelphia Eagles/others ON TEXT are standard with schools/entities associated with birds. As such, it is a standard embellishment and can be found on certain fonts. Contrast this with the BC logo in which a bald eagle is sporting the school's colors. This is not an embellishment on the text, but is a separate creative element dominating the center of the logo (de minimus does not apply).
 * Lastly, One must consider the utilitarian nature of text (which is why it is not copyrightable, no matter what the font). Other fonts include feathers (example). You have to ask yourself, what is the function of the feathers? Are they merely embellishments of the text? Or are they a separate image worthy of copyrightability?
 * All that said, I offer this as my opinion on the matter: the image is PD. I recognize that others may disagree with my opinion on the matter and will support whatever consensus opinion is reached on the subject. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:16, 20 March 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:Train accident mpt.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: delete. The software appears to be doing some strange things today, so the link is not turning red for whatever reason, but this discussion was closed as delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Train accident mpt.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Looks like a scan or photo of image from print media; possible copyvio. Uploader claimed to be copyright holder; appears unlikely. bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 20 March 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:City Centre Indore .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 ⚡  13:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Appears to be downsized copy of a photo of Cyber Park, Bangalore (not city centre of Indore) which was published 2005, apparently by a different individual. bobrayner (talk) 02:43, 20 March 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:Khurai Civil Court.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 ⚡  10:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Khurai Civil Court.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This appears to be a photo of Lahore High Court, previously published in the Tribune, which the uploader appears to have crudely photoshopped with a sign suggesting that it's a different building in a different city. Uploader claimed to hold copyright; seems unlikely. bobrayner (talk) 02:46, 20 March 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:MPACL Bhopal.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 ⚡  13:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Appears to be a photo of a different building with a new logo crudely photoshopped onto it. Source of original photo unknown. Appears unlikely that uploader holds copyright to original photo. bobrayner (talk) 02:53, 20 March 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:Adam Shaw Meditation.tif

 * 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 ⚡  03:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Adam Shaw Meditation.tif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Delete: the Printmatters claims to be the author of the work but describes the image as a painting by Adam Shaw, however, there is no evidence of permission from the artist. ww2censor (talk) 03:04, 20 March 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:M2K Mall Indore.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 ⚡  13:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * File:M2K Mall Indore.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Logo in lower right corner suggests this is a professionally-produced mockup by an architect/agency. Actual owner of URL given in "source" field seems unrelated to subject of this photo. Seems unlikely that uploader would hold copyright. bobrayner (talk) 03:04, 20 March 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:Indore Central.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 ⚡  13:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Appears to be a photo from a Guardian article. Unlikely that uploader would hold copyright. bobrayner (talk) 03:07, 20 March 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:Indore Airport.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 ⚡  13:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Looks like somebody professional has created pretty CGI of an airport terminal, then somebody amateur has put the name of a different airport on top (with a typo). Does not resemble actual layout of Indore airport terminal visible from satellite photos; unlikely that upoader owns copyright to original photo. bobrayner (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be a genuine rendering of a project that is currently under construction, but it's certainly not the uploader's work. See . Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 20 March 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:City Bus Indore.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 ⚡  13:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Photo is same as this. Unlikely that upholder owns copyright to Volvo press photos. bobrayner (talk) 03:17, 20 March 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:Chief pocatello.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 ⚡  03:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Photograph of a copyrighted statue, hence a derivative work. Not covered by F.o.P. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 20 March 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:Prototype2.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 ⚡  03:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Prototype2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image is promotion material (what appears to be a web side-banner ad) for the video game, and not the type of nfc generally allowed for in VG articles (cover or screenshots, or ad posters with significant sourced commentary about the poster art themselves). M ASEM (t) 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing more to say except . This guy Masem not watching that article anymore. Poor TWEWY :(  « ₣M₣ »  19:16, 20 March 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.