Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 11



File:Vimochanam.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * See Files for deletion/2012 July 16 which is probably about the same image. It was deleted because it fails WP:NFCC. Now it is here as a PD image instead, so the situation has changed. Apparently made in 1939 by someone called T. Marconi. The permission field tells that "He's dead, the image can be used". However, there is no evidence that he died before 1941, which is required for this to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is India, and the copyright is before 1952! T Marconi was the director of the film, so I put his name. I don't know who the actual author is, but no-one living in 1939 is alive (particularly the film crew). Kailash29792 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The present copyright status in India is irrelevant, since Wikipedia only cares about the United States copyright status. It is only important to know what the Indian copyright status was on 1 January 1996. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, the 1939 pic was released before '41! read the source. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The rule says both death and publication before 1941. Publication before 1941 but death after 1940 isn't enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll hav 2 just surrender, coz I don't know if the author is alive or not (most likely not) but I can ask a film historian maybe... Kailash29792 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2012 (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:Na Berlin.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Source doesn't provide any information about publication in Poland. Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the rule on Polish copyright? (We're worried about a URAA issue here?) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It says "Üicture taken prior 1945, polish copyright expired". The photo is in the public domain in both Poland and the United States if it was first published in either country before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice, but there is no way to prove if it was published without a copyright notice since no publication is listed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2012 (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:Lotnictwo Polskie na froncie wschodnim.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Lotnictwo Polskie na froncie wschodnim.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Source doesn't provide any information about publication in Poland. Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2012 (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:Renigunta Movie poster.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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Renigunta Movie poster.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * it is a movie poster taken from a blog that was uploaded with a free use license when the blog most assuredly does not own the copyright to release it.-- The Red Pen of Doom  12:53, 11 August 2012 (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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the uploader has restored the free use licensing claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:28, 12 August 2012 (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:Charlie Sutton 1954 Coles Footy Card.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Charlie Sutton 1954 Coles Footy Card.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Not in the public domain in the United States since it was taken after 1945. Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Image was never released in the US, so does US copyright even apply? --AussieLegend (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Australian images are protected by copyright in the United States regardless of whether the said images have been published in the United States or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the US agreed to restore copyrights, but since this image was never published in the US there was nothing to restore. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are mistaken, AussieLegend. The publisher automatically holds copyright in the United States. All files on Wikipedia have to be appropriate licensed for the Untied States, which unfortunately this file is not; it was not out of copyright in Australia on the URAA date. This means it is copyrighted as if it were a domestic file, i.e. 95 years after publication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:12, 12 August 2012 (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:Proud Loyal Passionate.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Proud Loyal Passionate.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No freedom of panorama for most 2D things in Australia, as far as I can tell. Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What does "freedom of panorama" mean. It is a photo taken in a public place of a temporary banner, not a sculpture or artwork, that is created and destroyed each week when the team runs on the ground. I took the photo. I hold the copyright for the photo.  I don't know what else you want. The-Pope (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Freedom of panorama means that you may take a photo of certain things (mostly 3D objects) in Australia if they are on permanent display in a public place. This banner is not on permanent display and it is not 3D, so the photo violates the copyright of the designer of the banner. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was on permanent display whilst it existed (before it was destroyed and disposed of) and is 3D - even crepe paper has thickness. The-Pope (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Copyright Act 1968 does not differentiate between 2D and 3D works. Freedom of Panorama is addressed in s65-68 of The Act, which specifically includes 2D works and works that have no defined dimensions. There doesn't seem to be anything preventing the photograph of a banner at a football match. We can virtually take photos of anything in public view here. Given that this banner was specifically created for this match and was destroyed shortly after it was photographed, it was effectively on permanent display. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most 2D works do not fit the definition of a "work of artistic craftsmanship". --Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, The Act does not differentiate. The definition of "artistic work" is fairly broad including "a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not". (emphasis added) Para (c) includes "a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), which is meant to cover all bases. In any case, the "work" in the photo is clearly 3D, thanks to the wind. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mixing up the terms "artistic work" and "work of artistic craftsmanship". The law only applies to the latter. The definition of an artistic work suggests that a work covered by "a" or "b" doesn't have to be a work of artistic craftsmanship and that a work of artistic craftsmanship doesn't have to be a work covered by "a" or "b". For a discussion of the meaning of the term "work of artistic craftsmanship", see this document. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, "permanent installation" typically implies that the item is meant to be presented indefinitely, without any defined end date of the exhibition. This item is obviously placed at a location not suitable for permanently installed banners. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not mixing them up. The relevant section of The Act is titled "Division 7--Acts not constituting infringements of copyright in artistic works". The section of that division that you linked to "applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10." Paragraph (c), which I mentioned earlier, says that an artistic work is "a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)". According to the law, the two are essentially the same. The document you linked to is 14 years old, authored by a legal officer from a private organisation that has vested interest in protecting the copyright of its members and which has no authority under the law. It is the 14 year old opinion of one person. You might note that it says that "logos and stylised letters" have been found to be "sufficiently original" for copyright protection, but Wikipedia does not protect text logos or fonts because US courts have since decided that they aren't "sufficiently original". The vast majority of content in that banner consists of simple geometric shapes and fonts and so are not protected. This includes the LG logo, which is simply a modified Pac-man icon. The act doesn't mention "permanent". It says "otherwise than temporarily", which implies that the work will be moved somewhere else for the major part of its life. In the case of the banner, its only move was to a garbage bin somewhere. The major part of its life was the football match, so display was "otherwise than temporarily". --AussieLegend (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * About simple shapes, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg. It seems that the document is accurate on the point about simple shapes. You are mixing up Australian laws with American laws. The flag is, on the other hand, allowed on English Wikipedia (as File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg), because it is ineligible for copyright in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The banner mainly consists of simple shapes (including text) and the copyrighted elements are too small (de minimis) to be seen as a "copyright violation". Bidgee (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment on the discussion above but there is no way this is de minimis. Standard of originality are not high and the knight at the top is a considerable feature of the work. Indeed it is difficult to construe it as separate to the rest of the work. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "knight" is not a knight, it shows how very little you know about it, since itt isn't the main feature and it isn't a knight. This is de minimis as the copyrighted works on the banner are not the main feature. Bidgee (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The United States Copyright Office accepted the registrations of the signs at this web page, as shown by the copyright registration numbers. Isn't this banner more complex than those signs? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * and you wonder why Australian editors are disliking you when you keep coming back with US this and US that. This banner was photographed in Australia, the above signs you show are in the US and are not the same, it's like compairing an A380 with an SAAB 340. Bidgee (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want Australian law instead, you need to prove that the banner is less complex than this. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Got to love the silly comments from you. Australian Aboriginal Flag is a complex legal issue which has a lot of history but it doesn't make this banner copyrighted. Bidgee (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2012 (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:Charlie Sutton Coaching.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 ⚡  02:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Charlie Sutton Coaching.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Taken after 1945 so not in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that the 1945 rule only applied to commons and that the 1955 rule in PD-Australia is still valid here. Please clarify, or point to where this has been discussed and confirmed by real lawyers, not wikilawyers. The-Pope (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The pre-1946 rule applies to both Wikipedia and Commons. See Golan v. Holder. The pre-1955 rule applies to Australia whereas the pre-1946 rule applies to the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, we get it, USA rulz da werld. Non-free image usage rational added.The-Pope (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so taken to WP:FFD because it fails WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2012 (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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 August 2012 (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:Topological map of TFL rail systems.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 - this wasn't an easy decision, but someone has to make it. As Matthewedwards pointed out, on Wikipedia we're working with a threshold of originality higher than that of Commons, because Commons requires the item to be below the UK threshold, which is lower than the US threshold (FYI, In the US, we use the standard not of "sweat of the brow", but of creativity level).

Lacking any ability to come up with a firm and clear answer, I've simply had to make a judgment call here, and in my judgment this is not a copyright infringement and a suit brought to a trial almost certainly would lose in court on that principle. One might compare to the recent copyright judgment in favor of Google stating that no infringment occurred, when in fact Google completed what was far more of a derivative work than this one is.

Not that it might stop the TFL lawyers from trying (if you're reading this and contemplating lawsuits, please be nice to me; I'm just a volunteer without legal resources who is trying to work in good faith). Of course, they are free to send a DMCA, and the Wikimedia Foundation will handle the case. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 10:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Topological map of TFL rail systems.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Stated to be self-drawn, which I don't doubt: but there is a significant resemblance to the TfL Standard Tube Map, which according to the notice in square F1, is very definitely the copyright of Transport for London. Red rose64 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the copyright issue, I would say that the image isn't very useful. The purpose of a Wikipedia image should be to use it in a Wikipedia article, but I had to look at a 3500px version in order to read the station names. I don't see how it would be possible to include an image so big in an article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in use, so someone thinks it's useful. Besides, use is irrelevant here, the issue is whether or not it is freely licensed, and I think it's a derivative of the LU map, ergo copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't copy the official map at all. I collected the coordinates for each station from the wikipedia articles, and with the help of Google Maps and OpenStreetMap, laid them out in their correct positions with the lines. I used Template:LUL color and Tube map for the line colours and styles (which have different hex values to TFL's Colour guidelines). When they were all laid out, I rotated the drawing by about 30-degrees.

Then I redrew the Circle line with straight lines and 90- and 45-degree angles, but keeping it to the more geographically correct shape than the official Tube map (where it looks like a wine bottle on its side). After that I redrew the District and Hammersmith lines. Compare my source material to the final output and you can see they are pretty close in shape, unlike the official map's depiction. The right end of the District line is horizontal, the offical map has it shoot off in a NE direction, which is not geographically correct. The next line I drew was the Central line, which I have going through the centre of the Circle as far as Chancery Lane, before it runs down to Bank and back up to Liverpool Street and off to Mile End where it meets with District and Hammersmith line, and then runs off in a NE direction. Compare the loop in my final map with the geographically correct source where it goes around Gants Hill, Barkingside, Chigwell etc and it's in a diamond shape, unlike the tube map which makes it square.

Next to be redrawn was the Northern lines, and I've put Mornington Crescent on the correct side of the route (albeit a minor change, but an important one), but again, the line is more geographically correct than the official tube map, as both of my forks at the top are drawn at a 135-degree angle. The Picadilly, Metropolitan and Jubilee lines were next to be retraced because in places their routing is the same, and again I did it all with straight lines and 90- and 45-degree corners, yet still more geographically correct than the official map's. Last to be drawn was the Bakerloo, Victoria and Waterloo-City lines because they were pretty much able to be slotted in around the other lines.

After that were the London Rail lines. I did the Overground routes first, starting with the branch shared with the Bakerloo line. DLR followed, then the Tramlink. Each retrace of the line required the re-placement of some stations, and some distortion of the lines (the Wimbledon branch of the District line isn't exactly as I wanted it because I drew it in a SE direction). I also added the East London Line Extention of the Overground and Crossrail, which like Tramlink, do not appear on any official tube maps. So tell me, which part of TFL's map did I copy that from?

All I did that's the same as the official map is use the official line colours, and circles and ticks for stations. But circles and ticks are used on transit maps the world over. That's just a standard. The only other things I've used are public domain elements from Commons for boat, plane and National Rail symbols. Everything else is entirely my own work. I didn't reference the Official Map even once in the creation of mine. Other elements that are different to the Official map: the Beckton branch of the DLR that turns back on itself, the Victoria line crossing Picadilly at Finsbury Park, the Overground line from Euston being inbetween the Northern lines, the Uxbridge and Hillingdon stations being in a more correct location, the Watford branch of Metropolitan and Watford Junction branch of the Overground being closer together, the Bakerloo branch crosses Hammersmith and Circle at Paddington Station so that it shows the interchange is with the Circle and District station, before heading back outside of the circular route at Edgeware Road and Marylebone. All these were drawn due to show them as more geographically correct than the official map does. Other design elements that I specifically chose to do: Lines are 4px wide. Where two lines are shared on the same track, I chose to place a 4px gap between the two colours (Circle and District for example). Where lines head towards the same station but not on the same track (like District and Central for Ealing Broadway, or the Northern and Bakerloo lines between Charing Cross and Waterloo, or Metropolitan and Jubilee between Finchley Road Wembley Park) the gap is 16px to clearly show the track is not shared.

There's even a typo in my map that isn't on the Offical map! I wonder if AGF doesn't exist any more, although I expect RedRose64 would like us to AGF on his files. So fuck you very much for making me take an hour out of my day to explain myself, fuck you very much for bitching about it, Stefan. Go ahead and delete it, and let's see what you can come up with. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 19:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is a potential legal issue, and TfL's lawyers won't AGF at all. Your deliberate typo of "Raynors" for "Rayners" won't cut any ice with them. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That wasn't the typo I was referring to, it was Liecester Square, and it wasn't deliberate. TFL can't claim copyright on every map that depicts the locations of stations in London. Mobile Matthewedwards (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete That's true, but they do (aggressively, at times) claim copyright over their famous diagramatic tube map of which this is an obvious derivative. This is a useful image which I find really interesting, but it's not PD. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not licensed as PD. So what do you recommend be done so that it adequately different from the official map, given that putting the lines and station positions in a more geographically true pattern doesn't cut it? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 01:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I'd suggest using a more geographically correct pattern. The key thing here is that the diagram is very similar to TfL's copyright protected diagram and so unfortunately it's not usable. I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I'm not going to venture into giving out advice on how the make the image different-enough. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its a different drawing entirely (super-impose the two and look at how different); many seperately drawn LU diagrams exist over the world for information purposes even in published form if a licenced derivative from TfL isn't sought or used.  *This* isn't TfL's tube map, and though containing similar data doesn't look anything like a tube map one would collect from a station.  Further, its rather worrying that other users are stating in such catagoric terms that its "not acceptable", when such an assertion is merely their opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutrageousBenedict (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Someone with some sense. TFL cannot copyright every schematic diagram of where the stations are. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I made this map myself took the station locations from their nearly-300 Wikipedia pages and used Google maps and OpenStreetMap for line directions. After arranging them all (see File:London Underground and Rail geographically.svg) I created a schematic map of them with straight lines and 45- and 90-degree angles by manipulating and adjusting the lines and station locations.

I never used the official map as a source for mine, not even once. I used Template:LUL color and Tube map to shade my lines (which have different hex values to TFL's Colour guidelines), my station positions and lines are geographically more correct compared to the TFL's map, both in direction and proximity to each other. I made stylistic decisions on how and where to display lines, in size, position relative to others, etc. The lines I drew, like the Circle line for instance (the yellow one), aren't even the same shape. I even included systems that the TFL don't, like the Tramlink in South London, London Overground's new line that will start operating in December 2012, and the Crossrail which isn't due to be opened until 2018. If I wanted to copy TFL's map I could have easily done that and not spend weeks on mine.

Surely, even with the copyright notice on TFL's official map, the TFL cannot claim copyright on all schematic diagrams of the train and tube stations in London, especially when TFL material is not referenced or even viewed while creating different map of the systems. There are only so many ways of presenting a schematic of the stations so of course they may end up looking similar, but I don't think the resemblance is significant, which is what was stated in the PUF nomination, or that it's an "obvious derivative". While reading the little I understand of derivative work, it seems to say that derivatives have to be based on a preexisting work, but I didn't do that.

Instead of just saying "its a derivative", how about explaining why you think that, what makes it a derivative if it is, and also what I need to do to make it not a derivative and not a resemblance, when both maps are maps of the same stations and routes! I'm not touting my image as the Tube map, it is just a schematic of the same stations and lines. There is no point in making it more geographically accurate as suggested: it already is more geographically accurate than the offical map and to make it even more geographically accurate would mean deviating from schematic practices of straight lines and few corners. I'd have lines looking like staircases all over the place and running off at various angles. I don't want to produce a map that is completely geographically accurate either because that's not what schematics are, and it would be impossible to fit station names into the map in the central part of it. They'd overlap with each other. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I'd be inclined to say that this is allowable. While there may be similarities between this map and others, equally, there may well be similarities between sketches or photographs which depict the same thing, and I don't think there would be derivative work issues there. I am going to request some more input on this. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redesign) - I'm sorry Matthew, we have a lot of considerations here. Copyright-wise there are still a lot of elements which are the same between versions (yours and the official one). I know you didn't reference the official one, but your familiarity with it carried over. The indications for stations are the same; the colours are the same; and in implementation of the "schematic" thing it's also ended up very similar. The stylised Thames, although it follows a different path, is still constructed the same way. Normally we have few concerns other than copyright, but we do here: a viewer could easily be confused between this and the official version, and that's something TfL (who I've emailed in the past without a successful outcome) won't be keen on (they also have the right to protect it). It's very unfortunate, because I know you won't feel like recasting your own work into something else which you feel is worse but will survive comparison. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No where in the thumbnail captions or the file description page does it hint at it being an offical version. We aren't worried that our photos of skyscrapers may be mistaken for the architects' official photos. We don't worry that a photo of a celebrity at a movie premiere may be mistaken for one taken at the same event by Getty. Why so much concern about this? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete in agreement with Grandiose here. If you never saw the Tube map and made this on your own, completely, there may be some legal out, but you clearly state influences that may be second- or third-hand from the Tube map (eg line colors) and other faces (the 45 degree angles, the stylized route of the Thames) that its hard to say this isn't a derivative work. This is not to say that TfL can claim copyright on the specific style or approach used in the tube map, nor can they claim copyrights on the tube paths and stations, but they can say that their assembly of them is copyrighted, and this image, which while different still thematically uses the same elements is going to likely be a problem. --M ASEM  (t) 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The line colours come from a template on Wikipedia that has different hex values for the line colours than TFL states in their docs. Also, 45 degree angles are not new to schematic diagrams and not exclusive to TFL's Map, so surely they can be used in other diagrams. Using ticks and circles is not exclusive to TFL either. Check out schematic maps for Madrid Metro (File:Madrid Metro Map.svg) and New York Subway (File:NYC subway-4D.svg) are they violating TFL's copyright? I don't think so. They're universal indicators.
 * Masem, I'm not sure what you mean in that TFL can say that the assembly of stations and lines is copyrighted to them. How is Bing, Google, Yahoo, OSM, Michelin, Ordnance Survey, etc allowed to show them but we're not? The locations of the stations, and which stations precede and follow them on which lines are pure facts, which cannot be copyrighted, so to assemble them based on those facts cannot be copyrighted either.
 * This isn't Possibly confused with official media, it's "Possibly unfree media", but until now, no one has said what specific elements are not free. There's just been a bunch of generalisations. The nominator RedRose said "significant resemblance" but didn't bother saying what elements he has issue with, nor did Nick-D who just says it's an "obvious derivative" and "very similar". Mattbuck didn't elaborate on what he thought was a "copyright issue" either. Finally Grandiose did, and Masem has, however, the parts you've mentioned are not copyrightable in the US.
 * This file is not hosted on Commons, it's hosted on Wikipedia and must follow only US laws, not US and local laws. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_work#Maps (with references) says that even in copyrighted maps, US law says that certain elements are in the public domain: placenames (here that means the station names), the use of colours, the use of symbols (that would be the circles), and geographic features or facts (the locations of the stations and how they are connected in this case), which means that even though TFL own the copyright to their map, certain elements of their map are not copyrightable in the US.
 * So given that it was created in the US and is hosted in the US, and that it was compiled using information licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL from Wikipedia and CC-BY-SA 2.0 from OpenStreetMap, and that it uses elements that are deemed to be in the public domain, as well as styles common to schematic diagrams (straight lines and 45 and 90 degree angles), what still makes it unfree? It isn't the station names, it isn't the symbols used as station markers, it isn't the colours used, it isn't the depicted relation of stations and lines to one another, it surely can't be 45-degree corners and other styles that are universally common to schematic diagrams and topological maps, can it? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The way I think of this is how we treat the recreation of graphs from academic papers where data used to make the graph is also available. There are uncopyrightable elements - you can't copyright the data, and you can't claim copyright on something like a line graph, but you can make copyright claims on some of the embellishments or annotations if those aren't directly data elements.  So when one wishes to include a remade graph from an academic paper, we generally tell editors to stick to the data putting into the graph in their own form and nothing else. This is compariable to here. TfL cannot claim copyright on the underlying data - the station names, the lines, and their topological relatoinships (eg which station is on which line), nor can they claim copyright on the location of each station, nor can they claim copyright on the fonts or simple symbols used for station and line indictors.  But the rest of this map is highly stylized. Station locations are roughly, but nowhere near their relative positions but instead based on a pleasing aesthetic to make it easy to follow the diagram.  Tube color choices have been made to help read the map.  The Thames, a major landmark in London, is marked in an abstract way to help visitors to get a sense of bearing. These are all elements past data that we have to avoid reusing in a derivative work to avoid the copyright problem.  Unfortunately, this is what this map does.  Yes, the rough layout of the stations are different, but it aims for a slightly different but entirely-too-similar aesthetic, and nearly all of the other creative parts of the the TfL are reused here, which screams "derivative work".  It is not that the style overall (using abstract circles and lines to create a topological map) is copyrighted, but the style as applied to the London Underground system that's the issue.  I know I've seen the style used elsewhere (in one case, to map the 250 top films from IMDB  but as a different data set, so that's not derivative of the London map.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So are all the topological maps we host are derivatives of the official versions, then? The two I linked to earlier for Madrid and New York's systems are Featured Pictures. If this is the case, what makes those acceptable? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 14:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As best as I can tell, there's no official version of the Mardid or Metro map that those two images borrow style significantly from that. (Data, yes, but that's it). Thus the derivative work claim is less a problem and likely non-existent. --M ASEM (t) 06:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Madrid, while http://www.metromadrid.es/export/sites/metro/comun/documentos/planos/Planoesquematicoingles.pdf is the current official map (which bas removed lines at 45-degree angles), previous editions of the map looked almost identical. It's hard to find images that aren't mirrors of Wikipedia's (or Commons, actually), but http://i.imgur.com/FMbTq.jpg is a scan of a page of Mark Ovenden's 2007 Metro Map book, and it shows the officail Madrid Metro map as it was in early 2007 before the redesign at the end of the year. New stations and line extensions have occurred since then, but to me this is more of a "derivative" than what I produced. Anyhoo, this particular discussion should be left for another time and another venue. My point was that maps of the same things are always going to be similar. Thomas Guides, Bing, Google, Yahoo, MapQuest, RandMcNally and Michelin don't sue each other because their maps of Los Angeles display the same information, Roads, streetnames, rivers, placenames, built-up commercial areas, greenland, railroads, etc etc and they all use extremely similar styles. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The New York one would be a good model for avoiding the copyright issue, actually. You'll notice the stations and interchanges are different; the lines are done differently; there are extra elements, such as the parks, area names (although prompted by the lack of station names in some cases) ; and their are more gratuitous corners (eg. in the Lorimer St area, north Brooklyn); indications of when the service runs. Such files will always have the distinction that they are of different cities, but it is only one factor. Indeed I believe TfL sued the official map of some city, but I don't recall exactly. So there are some definite factors here to consider. Overall if you restyled your version like the New York one, it would be a lot easier to keep. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The official NY map does have smoothly curved lines and corners, while our version has straight lines and harsher corners. The outlines of the water are more angular in our version, and less geographic than the offical map. And yes, ours does a better job at showing express routes, schedules of operations, etc by different station markers. I'll acknowledge all that. But there are also similarities. The line colours are the same. The official maps I've seen do show the parks and the names of the five boroughs, and so does ours. The official map still shows express and local services, and MTA produce official maps for night services, etc. Ours just combines them all into one diagram. But you say "the lines are done differently" -- I guess you mean they are more angular and straight, well mine are done differently too. They are more geographic. If our Wikipedia articles about the LU lines and stations contained information about service frequency, operation times, night service, peak service, etc, I might have been inclined to consider including that info in the map. But we don't. OK, so my station markers are pretty identical to TFLs, but as I pointed out, US law doesn't acknowledge copyright for map symbols. If it makes you happier that they are changed, then yes, I will come up with something, but I don't feel there's a copyright law-based required reason to do so. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I feel some perspective is offered by taking a look at, which shows pictures from an exhibition of 'alternative tube maps'. These maps do not appear to have caused any lawsuits, and in my view the schematics shown are no less similar to the official map than the map under discussion is.  They also demonstrate that most of the apparent similarities come simply from following the rules and conventions of this type of map while using recognisable line colours. 95.147.55.55 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a significant degree of visual copying, beyond the shared principle that lines are drawn schematically in straight 90° or 45° angles, which is a common convention for all such topological maps (that is also true for stylized presentation of the river, also a conventional element of such maps). Given these constraining factors, and the geographical facts on the ground, it would be hard to do such a map in a way that would resemble the official map less than this does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep surprisingly, I had forgotten to do state this earlier. To confirm what Fut Perf said, I can provide scans and links of plenty of metro and light rail maps with similarly-styled rivers in them. What I did is not new, and it too is more geographic than TFL's. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Image_Request which includes a case for the originality criterion being the independent "skill, labour or judgement" of the author in creating their work, I am convinced that Matthewedwards has invested sufficient "skill, labour or judgement" of his own in creating this image. The example quoted there about an enzyme is, I think, pertinent: two people work independently from X-ray data to generate a 3D image of a new enzyme; each holds the copyright of his/her image, even if they use the same conventional colors for particular atoms, and even if the images turn out to be similar. I'm also reminded of considerations regarding software copyright: two independently created programs to solve a particular problem do not necessarily infringe each other's copyright. Where there are elements in the software that could straightforwardly be implemented in different ways, copyright infringement may occur (think of the "panels" or "palettes" in Photoshop, or the way that Visual Studio behaves when you drag things around to change the layout). But there are some conventions you are expected to follow (like putting the File menu on the left, or using the F1 key for help, etc) and you don't infringe Microsoft's copyright if you produce a wordprocessor that has a File menu on the left. I consider this map's use of color and 45° angles to be similarly conventional. — Hebrides (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2012 (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:35 anniversary barbie.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:35 anniversary barbie.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of a toy. See Commons:COM:TOYS. Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2012 (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:Advertising sign for Sonnys BBQ.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Advertising sign for Sonnys BBQ.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Sonny's BBQ appears to be an American company. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. It is not clear when the drawing on the sign was used for the first time. Stefan2 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2012 (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:AEGOLGANOOZA 1.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:AEGOLGANOOZA 1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:ALBION AWAKE 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:ALBION AWAKE 4.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:ALBION AWAKE 3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:ALBION AWAKE 1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Dubious own work: seems to be scanned from a book or similar. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (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:Agrippa II.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * No evidence of permission from the photographer. See Commons:COM:ART. Stefan2 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (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:Alice guillermo book.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Alice guillermo book.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of a book or some similar object. Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2012 (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:Allsortscandymosiac.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Might violate Blair Butterfield's copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2012 (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:Alternativeulster1.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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Alternativeulster1.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (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:Alvman.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Statue/sculpture at an unknown location. Possibly at a place with no FOP. Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Identified as The "Alford man" in Mayfield, New York. Not a building, which is the only category where the US recognizes a FOP-type right. Unfree. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (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:Amour2.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Amour2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The summary suggests that this isn't own work. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2012 (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:Amys view flyer fQUADs.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Amys view flyer fQUADs.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2012 (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:AnAmericanWaste.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2012 (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:Andropovplaque.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * It says that "Russia, where this photo was taken, does not recognize the freedom of panorama, image would be in violation of commons policy". There is no freedom of panorama in the United States either, so unless it was installed before 1923, it can't be kept here either. Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2012 (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:Andropov at Lubyanka.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Andropov at Lubyanka.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It says that "Russia, where this photo was taken, does not recognize the freedom of panorama, image would be in violation of commons policy". There is no freedom of panorama in the United States either, so unless it was installed before 1923, it can't be kept here either. Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely not installed before 1923; subject is Soviet leader during the 1980s which is captioned with his term of office as KGB head, in the sixties to 82. Therefore post-82.. No FUR possibility (unused, and no obvious place to put it). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:51, 11 August 2012 (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:Andronovo Kazakh.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * It says that it is in the public domain in Russia because everyone involved died at least 70 years ago. However, no one is credited and there is no evidence that it is in the public domain in the United States either. Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2012 (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:Angry-whopper-net.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Angry-whopper-net.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No FOP in USA. Is this logo copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2012 (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:AngelIsaacsAmyGrant.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * The description suggests that it has been taken from a film or something. Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An odd one, the description leaves some room for doubt – given the username, it's possible it was merely a shot on set or something. The odd black area tips it clearly into doubtful-delete category though. My thought was "scanner bed" but it's almost perfectly central. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (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:Chaudhry Muhammad Sarwar Khan.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Chaudhry Muhammad Sarwar Khan.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Appears to be a photo of a photo. No evidence that the original photo is free. Stefan2 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The original looks like an official picture, not a snapshot someone might have themselves. Might scrape a FUR at a much lower resolution. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (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:Bob Stupak unveils model of "Stupak Tower" at press conference.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Bob Stupak unveils model of & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Also uploaded as File:Bob Stupak unvails Stupak Tower model at press conference.jpg but with a different author listed. Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2012 (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:Jack and Jill 1938.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Jack and Jill 1938.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of permission. Copyright renewed or not? Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2012 (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:Winnipegosis, MB.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Winnipegosis, MB.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of permission. "Free circulation" is an unclear licence. Are derivative works allowed, for example? Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "no evidence", looks far more like a good faith attempt to get the image released bit without the technical know-how to use the right phrasing. I suggest a concerted attempt to contact the author; as it is it is insufficient though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note the type-o "as it is it is." Please advise me (the author) on what you would like the phrasing to be then. It is a free picture as the photographer is sitting beside me right now. (User:happyman1990) —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 6 September 2012 (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:MainRemoteUtilitiesWindow.png
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 ⚡  03:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Licence obviously wrong. Can't tell if it is free software or not. Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely unfree; they sell it on their web-page (OK, so that doesn't guarantee it's not available under a free licence, but it's well beyond probable). FUR if well constructed would be possible. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:43, 11 August 2012 (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:Alex-gorsky.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Alex-gorsky.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * My {{subst:npd}} was removed but no evidence of permission was provided. Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2012 (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.