Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 8

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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Photo of a calendar cover Eeekster (talk) 08:14, 8 July 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 discussion was: keep. File licensed under fair use. — ξ^xplicit 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fb-logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Bank logo unlikely to be owned by the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 09:47, 8 July 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⚡ 11:57, 10 July 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A photo taken of a textbook map, I suspect. Almost certainly not created by uploader, as claimed, otherwise it would not have page distortion. VKIL (talk) 16:24, 8 July 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sedumdivergens nass.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims CC-BY-NC , NC is not compatible with Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was unclear of what creative commons license I need to use in order to make it usable for wikipedia. It is my photo and I want it to be wikipedia usable - which license do I need to use? Can I not ask for attribution? I would prefer it if it isn't used for commercial purposes but if that license is incompatible I am willing to change it. Thanks. Moonbug (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also - could folks please link me to the relevant subsection of whichever wikipedia page it is that states NC is not compatible with wikipedia? When making claims of website policy it is only reasonable to link to the rule so stated. That way I can learn policies for myself and avoid mistakes in the future, or at least make an informed decision about the kind of website I am contributing to. Thank you. Moonbug (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Commons licenses {{cc-by}}, and {{cc-by-sa}} are the two options that most editors use if they wish to require attribution (this is a perfectly legitimate license term). It is the non-commercial license that is not allowed. If you select a "share alike" license, this makes sure that anybody who re-uses or changes your work will not be able to create a license for the derivative work that is more restrictive. Wikipedia:Copyrights provided a good outline of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Very nice picture BTW. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:58, 14 July 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.