Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 12

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

File:Sarah Geronimo THE NEXT ONE CONCERT.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Obvious copyvio; user claims ownership of the file despite being an obvious unfree image Blake Gripling (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (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

File:Intellitar Wikipedia Pic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no indication that this is Cc-by-sa-3.0 and a source url would be nice. img is used in user space so forget fair use. Jack Merridew 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles about software have the company symbol on them. And the fact that the article is in a draft page while the user works on it, before moving it to the main Wikipedia, is not relevant at all. Should we stop all drafting periods, and have people make articles directly, and then risk them being speedily deleted because they haven't had time to do enough work on them? It is suggested that new articles first be made in a draft. Dream Focus 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, User:Jack Merridew is correct. Per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline it needs a proper rationale and attribution, AND be in at least one mainspace article. Fix it and it becomes a keeper. JM is also correct about it cannot be in userspace, even while the article is developing. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. These issues must absolutely be addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image needs a fair use rationale and proper attribution. Do that, have it IN a mainspace article and its a keep. For instance, take a look at the rationale for the IBM or Yahoo logos. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michael. Ikip 02:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Fut.Perf. has it correct. It has to be both properly licensed AND used in at least one mainspace article in order to be kept. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only if proper rationale and attribution is provided. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for NFCC#7 unless by the end of the nomination period the article has reached consensus to go back to mainspace. (Restore unbureaucratically if article gets moved back to mainspace at a later point.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{
  dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• re the bot's comment; uploader has changed the license to {{Non-free logo}} and added a FUR for the non-extant Intellitar. The image, however, is being inappropriately used in userspace @ User:Zinc5000/Intellitar. This leaves the image as a speedy candidate. Jack Merridew 06:32, 14 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BenFranklinPic Intellitar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no indication that this is Cc-by-sa-3.0 and a source url would be nice. img is used in user space so forget fair use. Jack Merridew 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its in his user page while he works on a draft for an article. And if its a screenshot from the software the article is about, its counts as fair usage. Dream Focus 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, Dream, not to be difficult, but while a fair use non-free use rationale should definitely be added to the image per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, such an image may only be used in article namespace, not userspace per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria... even if he's working on it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per michael Ikip 02:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Fut.Perf. has it correct. It has to be both properly licensed AND used in at least one mainspace article in order to be kept. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only if proper rationale and attribution is provided. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for NFCC#7 unless by the end of the nomination period the article has reached consensus to go back to mainspace. (Restore unbureaucratically if article gets moved back to mainspace at a later point.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{
  dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• re the bot's comment; uploader has changed the license to {{Non-free software screenshot}} and added a FUR for the non-extant Intellitar. The image, however, is being inappropriately used in userspace @ User:Zinc5000/Intellitar. This leaves the image as a speedy candidate. Jack Merridew 06:35, 14 January 2010 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris Rice 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a publicity photo: [1], [2], [3]. Jafeluv (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2010 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stan Rice 02a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:20, 12 January 2010 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AagneyaLogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Supposedly the logo for the Aagneya festival at Government Engineering College, Trivandrum, India. Uploader claims own work but presumably the logo would be copyrighted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:17, 12 January 2010 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:CiaraLive.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Declined speedy deletion nominee. Original speedy rationale was, "Author has uploaded several Ciara-related images, three of which that have been copyright violations (see File:Ciara ScreamFest.jpg, File:MIWTS.jpg, and File:Jt-friends-ciara-2.jpg). Could not find this in a quick Google search but the extended details do not provide data to indicate this was a personal image." SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:04, 12 January 2010 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flavmilkshelf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Product artwork, or is it suffciently minimal? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2010 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SE Xperia-X1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image sourced to http://blog.reodica.org/ but I don't see any evidence that this site releases its images (which look like manufacturer's promo work anyway) into the public domain. Certainly replacable if not free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 12 January 2010 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moneyfrog.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Sculpture - No dispute about it being the uploaders photo though Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this image is being nominated for deletion because its a photo of a sculpture? There's a relevant discussion at

Wikipedia:VPP#Mass_Imagocide.Smallman12q (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Unless the sculpture is in the public domain, or freedom of panorama applies, the photograph is a derivative of a copyrighted work. The nom should have stated explicitly that it's because the sculpture is presumptively copyrighted, but anyway, that's the rationale for treating it as nonfree. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. Since it's a sculpture rather than a functional object, it's eligible for copyright; lacking evidence to the contrary, the only safe assumption is that it is copyrighted either through registration or through automatic copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there are "artist" that actually make a hefty amount of money by photographing graffiti. I've never seen how that was any different, other than the fact that wikipedia is a nonprofit. --24.170.248.74 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2011 (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 Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Criccieth.castle.arp.750pix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This file is unfree because it contains a specfic provisaion against it's inclusion in other photo libraries ( like Commons for example) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bzp jet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Product artwork which is primay subject of the image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2010 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chapstick.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Product artwork which is the primary subject of the image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bzp brands.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Product/Marketing artwork which is the primary focus of the image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NZNAC poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Advertising poster - which is the primary subject of the image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2010 (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 SGGH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original mr. toad ride.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Cropped watermark gave a source I can't currrently link to the uploader (thier talk page shows a history sadly) :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Unambiguous copyright infringement from http://www.davelandweb.com/mrtoad/images/August1955_1_mrtoad.jpg --MW talk contribs 18:27, 12 January 2010 (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: Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry for not using the template, I'm trying to declare possibility of too many files at once. The files uploaded by User:Amir.Hossein.7055 [4] seems to be tagged wrong. nothing proofs that he's the copyright holder of these files as there's no metadata and they're just like low resolution pictures used by news websites. compare the tags: [5] & [6] also PD-Self & PD-Iran. as I one day did the same work on en.wiki, I want to restitute it and I feel responsible on this case. :) Amirreza ^talk 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same for Cartoonbook (

WP:ANI#User:Cartoonbook --MW talk contribs 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at some of the recent contributions for User:Amir.Hossein.7055, I noticed that these are already tagged non-free, but have no fair use rationale. You might be better off just tagging these for no fair use rationale and letting that process run its course. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amir.Hossein.7055 is uploading nothing but copyright violation, I just blocked him on Commons because after the recent deletion of the january 18 uploads he simply tried to place the stolen images on Commons with his ribberish own work claims. Delete the rest of Amirs uploads, this includes:

• File:Montazeri.jpg
• File:Mohammad Reza Rahimi.jpg
• File:Gholam-Ali Hadad Adel.jpg
• File:Mohandes Mir-Hossein Mousavi.jpg
• File:Parliament of Iran.jpg
• File:Mohammad-Javad Bahonar.jpg
• File:Mohammad-Reza Mahdavi Kani.jpg
• File:Mohammad-Reza Mahdavi Kani.jpg

• File:Official portrait of Mir-Hossein Mousavi.jpg (added --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Some of this images were already uploaded to Commons before but deleted for copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2010 (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 as

File:Mr Toad Walt Disney World.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possible copyvio from http://www.davelandweb.com/mrtoad MW talk contribs 18:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I couldn't find the file you cited at the source URL you're citing. I have a feeling that this file probably is fine, and thus we can keep it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiny Toons Christmas Kiss.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low quality screen capture - Obviously NOT self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Splash Mountain layout.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possibly self-made but skeptical based on uploaders past history Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Major-General Iskander Mirza in uniform.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like a scan from a book or something. Doubt the uploader is the actual copyright holder. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reason to doubt the claim given the uploader's apparent use of their real name should lead us to conclude that they are the author of a book on Pres. Mirza. Now even though Mirza is not an uncommon name, a few moments reflection might suggest why the uploader would have this image and also why they might have chosen to write about Pres. Mirza. If that's not sufficient, as of now images published in Pakistan in 1959 or earlier are in the public domain there so that the image is quite probably free in any case (and would have been free in the USA too if not for the URAA). I really don't see any problem here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:51, 12 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Highlifepony.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Product/Marketing artwork which is the primary subject of the image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:46, 12 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zonkers3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Product/Marketing artwork that is the primary subject of the image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't close-up pictures of labels; they're pictures of packages and their contents, arranged and photographed by me. According to the IUP, images of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright (like this), even if others retain copyright to the actual items photographed. I don't spend much time on images so if there's some conflicting policy you can point me to that says otherwise, I'd like to take a look at it. By the same token, if there are OTRS requests to remove these, I'd like to see those as well. Thanks! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's STILL non-free content. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't take a photograph of something that is copyrighted and then claim it belongs to you. Take a look at this page. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a commons page. Can you show me a Wikipedia page? Based on the IUP, I don't see it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... Yes, it's a Commons page. I'm not really sure what that has to do with it. It discusses the law as interpretted by the WMF. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it discusses the law as interpreted by Commons users. I could see how that would be relevant if I were requesting that the files be transferred to Commons, but I'm not. I'm working on building an encyclopedia (which is the goal of Wikipedia, but not the goal of the Commons) and I don't see how a guideline on a different project's site trumps a policy on Wikipedia, the site we're actually using. Our policy regarding image use is, aptly enough, the Image Use Policy. This is Wikipedia, so that's what I go by. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to the text of the policy you are discussing? J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to point to the text of the IUP that says I don't have to tag this as fair use. You're asking me to prove a negative. That's not how this works. The text I go by is "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright, though others may continue to hold copyright in items depicted in such photographs." I'm not releasing the copyright for Zonkers (which, by the way, are not even made anymore), I'm just releasing the use of this particular photo which I took. If ConAgra has a complaint, by all means let's hear it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm not even going to bother playing games. You cannot take a picture of copyrighted packaging and claim it as your own, just as I cannot scan the cover of a book and claim it as my own. That's just the way it is. If you want that changing, you're going to have to complain to whoever writes these laws, not me, not Wikipedia, not Commons, not the Foundation. Yes, the fact you've arranged the packaging with some contents and shot from an angel does confer some copyright to you- feel free to note in the image description that you have released the image under a CC license. However, as this image contains non-free components, it must be treated as non-free, (and thus meet our

non-free content criteria) and must be tagged with a non-free license. Alternatively, you could retake the image without the packaging. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not "playing games". Show me the policy. I see no need to change anything based on what the notoriously copyright-paranoid Commons users think. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a question worth asking is "Does anyone actually care?" @harej 23:48, 14 January 2010 (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: Delete - copyright most probably belongs to CTV and this is simply a derivative work that requires a home and a

File:CTV mural.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a mural; rights to the artwork are still probably held by the creator. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about this image, but this was taken from my camera at
  CTVglobemedia's headquarters at 299 Queen Street West in Toronto, Canada in December 2009. AlexRampaul (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (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 as

File:Passarella Presidente.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Almost certainly a copyright violation, given this user's history of mass-uploading copyrighted pictures of soccer players, but I cannot find the original source for this one so am listing here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:46, 12 January 2010 (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 as

File:Astrada River.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Almost certainly a copyright violation, given this user's history of mass-uploading copyrighted pictures of soccer players, but I cannot find the original source for this one so am listing here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:46, 12 January 2010 (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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the

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

• reason AlexRampaul (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if this is right licence for this image?

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 Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mardan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not free. Taken from http://gallery.mardan.com/main.php?g2_itemId=60. Fences&Windows 23:25, 12 January 2010 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guides.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No copyright information, watermarked image, not used in an article. Fences&Windows 23:25, 12 January 2010 (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.