Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 24

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Not deleted

PD painting, but per the source, the entire library of images are copyrighted. Probably available to use as fair-use as the image is a very small resolution. -- Retropunk (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is unquestionably in the public domain per {{

PD-Art}}. Originality of expression is needed for copyright. I have uploaded a higher quality version. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Tagged NPD instead

This professional headshot is published here. The page carries the notice: © 2007 Robert Gilder. Uploader (

This is the not the same photo that is shown on Robert Glider's website. the photo on the glider website has a broader smile. robert glider is gregory reinhart's manager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KickNYC (talk • contribs) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, it's not exactly the same, but it's clearly by the same professional photographer and taken at the same sitting. Unless you personally are the photographer and/or own the copyright to the image, you cannot simply upload it and give it a free license. This can only be done with the written permission of the copyright holder. Check your talk page, where another editor has left some advice as to how to go about this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kickNYCKickNYC (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC) i now have express permission from the photographer Jacques Chuilon for use of this photo in greg reinhart's wiki page. i just have to figure out who gets a copy of his email and what to do next. i need at least another week to read everyone's tips on how to do this. thanks. jacques chuilon said that he also took the headshot that is posted on the Glider website, although it is a different one.[reply]

i need to figure out if i can simply email this permission to creavtivecommons, and what license designation, or must the photographer do this himself?

eta: i forwarded the photographer's permission to: [email protected]KickNYC (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KickNYC (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eta: i want to make the picture bigger and the caption look better. i will ask mr. ghuilon if he wants a photo credit on his 2 photos.KickNYC (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Tagged {{

kickNYCKickNYC (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC) i now have express permission from the photographer Claire Besse for use of this photo in greg reinhart's wiki page. i just have to figure out who gets a copy of her email and what to do next. i need at least another week to read everyone's tips on how to do this. thanks. i need to figure out if i can simply email this permission to creavtivecommons, and what license designation, or must the photographer do this herself?[reply]

eta: i forwarded the photographer's permission to:

[email protected]KickNYC (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Tagged {{

This one is borderline, the uploader (KickNYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be the photographer/copyright holder, but does not make this claim. Given the previous two, this may not be a free image Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC) kickNYCKickNYC (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) kickNYCsays:[reply]

i now have express permission from the photographer Jacques Chuilon for use of this photo in greg reinhart's wiki page. i just have to figure out who gets a copy of his email and what to do next. i need at least another week to read everyone's tips on how to do this. thanks.

i need to figure out if i can simply email this permission to creavtivecommons, and what license designation, or must the photographer do this himself?

eta: i forwarded the photographer's permission to: [email protected]KickNYC (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KickNYC (talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Now tagged as non-free

poster listed as CC-3.0 but there is no justification for this. Appears to be a clearly commercial copyrighted image Peripitus (Talk) 13:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Now tagged as non-free

poster listed as CC-3.0 but there is no justification for this. Appears to be a clearly commercial copyrighted image Peripitus (Talk) 13:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Now tagged as non-free

poster listed as CC-3.0 but there is no justification for this. Appears to be a clearly commercial copyrighted image Peripitus (Talk) 13:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a screen capture from a movie rather than a user-created public-domain image. I think that this is not free but replaceable copyrighted Peripitus (Talk) 13:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Tineye found this possible source. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ESkog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signed promotional photo apparently - not a free image Peripitus (Talk) 13:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free licence here but linked to a flickr upload that states "all rights reserved" - Peripitus (Talk) 13:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: Deleted-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All tagged {{cc-by-3.0}} by uploader. For File:Steve.jpg see http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/73132017/Bongarts. See also User talk:Boxing245 for previous history of image copyright problems. 58.8.240.94 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Steve.jpg
• File:Oscardelahoyamuscles.jpg
• File:Tomaszadamek1.jpg
• File:Duddyshirt.jpg
• File:Christianbaletuxedo.jpg
• File:Racheldawesrooftop.jpg
• File:Pussinboots2.jpg
• File:Artie3.jpg
• File:Queenlillian.jpg
• File:Kingharold2.jpg
• File:Ogretriplets.jpg (failed upload?)
• File:Gingy3.jpg
• File:Pinnochioshrek.jpg
• File:3pigsshrek.jpg

Definetly looks like a batch of copy-vio uploads... - J Greb (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• clear, unambiguous, deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source is here: http://www.mopock.com/ZOIDS/photos/LigerZERO-X.html

On the main photos page, the original photographer says ""My own Toy ZOIDS" photos may not be reproduced without prior permission from the webmaster!", which does not go with the public domain upload tag. Storchofdoom (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.