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 Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged GFDL but attributed to someone else. User has image tag issues.  But|seriously|folks  04:28, 19 July 2007 (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 Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged GFDL but appears to be professional shot. User has image tag issues.  But|seriously|folks  04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Because of your prejudiced thinking: "User has image tag issues" you have automatically tagged all my images :rolleyes:[reply]

CCASA 2.0 SkierRMH (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2007 (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 F8 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral listing. Was tagged for speedy with this reason: "Check the history--no license originally, gfdl and then cc-by-sa added w/o evidence. Listed source site has no licensing notice."  But|seriously|folks  04:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader and I created the picture by myself. Roland Brandegger 10:48, 6 August 2007 (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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issue concerns use of Microsoft Powerpoint clip art. See talk page for discussion and link.  But|seriously|folks  05:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image tagged at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Vvcnvalogistics3full.jpg does not violate any Microsoft rules regarding use of Powerpoint clipart. The Microsoft rules are shown below.

The image contains minor things such as ship, symbol, or human icons, arrows. etc. Every graphics program includes things like these, from Photoshop, to low-end freeware art programs. Even word processing software has symbol fonts. It does not sell, license etc any product or service or have primary use of the media elements. It has no recognizable tie-in with any product or service or trademarks. It does not create obscene or scandalous works. None of these apply.

Others will not be able to extract the elements per se because it is a screenshot of a powerpoint slide not the slide itself. The only thing is this blurb from Microsoft: "You must include a valid copyright notice on your products and services that include copies of the Media Elements."

To satisy them, I will include a blurb with the image: "Contains clipart from Microsoft Powerpoint- not for commercial use or resale, per Microsoft guidelines at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/HP030900871033.aspx, Copyright, Microsoft Corporation"

Even if that's valid, Microsoft specifies non-commercial use. That makes the GFDL and Creative Commons licensing invalid. (CC's BY-NC-SA might be ok, but that's not considered free use for Wikipedia purposes.) Powers ^T 16:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say non-commercial use? It says you can't sell the clip-art. It doesn't say you can't sell your powerpoint slide including the clip-art. -N 20:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was going off of the "blurb" the previous poster mentioned that specifically said "not for commercial use or resale". I apologize; the link provided indeed does not support that interpretation from Microsoft. Still, the point remains that such a blurb would not be compatible with any license Wikipedia accepts. Powers ^T 03:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually though I'm going to have to agree this is unfree. Even if you are allowed to sell your powerpoint slide, it does say "You may not create obscene or scandalous works, as defined by federal law at the time the work is created, using the Media Elements." While it's not clear whether this is binding on re-users of the content, if it were to be it would prohibit derivative works. Since its not clear whether any of the restrictions are binding on content re-users, we must err on the side of caution and assume they do. -Nard 17:21, 23 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version of http://a240.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/45/l_36a31513bc3e872ffb1fc634db3d7da7.jpg  But|seriously|folks  05:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image SkierRMH (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2007 (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 I8 by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as CC but image page says permission is required. No evidence of permission.\  But|seriously|folks  07:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image showing through. -Nv8200p talk 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image SkierRMH (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2007 (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 I8 by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as CC, image page states permission necessary, no evidence of permission.  But|seriously|folks  07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image showing through. -Nv8200p talk 01:39, 30 August 2007 (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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged CC, image page states permission granted, no evidence thereof.  But|seriously|folks  07:57, 19 July 2007 (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) 09:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the official logo for the site, http:///www.3rdi.in, I have doubts of the GFDL licensing. The website states that "© 2007 3rD Creative Services, this website is protected under Copyright Acts in India Dark Falls ^talk 07:58, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible fair use book cover to a non-notable book, that's licensed as GFDL. Dark Falls ^talk 08:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, Fair use of GFDL picture[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 I7 by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from a website (http://www.hbbyb.com/p3-3.html), with no permission, and licensed as GFDL. Similar image, Image:Baiyunbian Liquor Classic.jpg Dark Falls ^talk 08:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of Baiyunbian company's product pictures

[[[User:ShakespeareFan00]] added a rationale for this Sfan00 IMG 12:23, 2 August 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader states that the image is "owned" by On Training, although it is licensed under GFDL. Dark Falls ^talk 08:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the uploader really is the copyright holder, this would be acceptable, though, wouldn't it? (Perhaps not advisable, but it's too late for that.) Powers ^T 16:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See United States trademark law. If the person was the sole owner of the business, then yes, it would be acceptable. But the problem we are facing is if the person is the owner of the trademark. We have no confirmation, no proof of that. Also, if the company was public for instance, the person will have no rights whatsoever to make the trademark public.... --Dark Falls ^talk 07:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have ((trademark)) to handle the case of free-but-trademarked images. Unless the GFDL is incompatible with trademark restrictions or the uploader in not in a position with the company such that he is allowed to release the image under the GFDL copyright-wise, the only thing that would need to be changed would be to add ((trademark)) next to ((GFDL-self-no-disclaimers)) Anomie 12:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we find out if the uploader is in such a position? The only way seems to get the company to sent a letter to the legal OTRS regarding the copyright of the image. I am unwilling to just take the user's word on this... --Dark Falls ^talk 12:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or have them put a GFDL notice on their official website, I suppose. I was just pointing out that AFAICT the trademark talk above wasn't really an issue. Anomie 14:20, 28 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same image at http://www.allocine.fr/personne/galerievignette_gen_cpersonne=129513.html, except it was copyright at WE Productions, not GFDL. Dark Falls ^talk 08:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• obviously unfree. -N 14:44, 21 July 2007 (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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obviously derived from Image:KuhLedesmaFilipinoJazzSinger.JPG, a CD cover bluemask ^(talk) 10:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The art work is now a black&white collage. Dragonbite 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have created a derivative work, which is still covered under the copyright of the original work. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image does not appear to be typical of those which are PD and no source is specified. Suspected copyvio. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:50, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a photograph of a copyrighted work of art, this image is unable to be released to the public domain by the photographer. Believe me, I wish the US had the same freedom of panorama laws as some other countries -- I've had my own Sentinel images deleted from Commons -- but the law is the law. — Powers ^T 15:59, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary explains the image is found on google.com but the editor releases it under GFDL; the image looks copyright. —  LaNicoya  •TALK• 19:16, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is tagged as GFDL but is a copyright logo of TeleMovil. This user has an extensive history of adding inappropriate licenses to images.

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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure the user who first uploaded this to eoWiki was in not a possision to release it under the GFDL license as claimed. There is a chance it's lapsed in to the public domain if copyright was not registered or renewed at the time and such, but lack of source data makes this hard to determine. Sherool (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional images are typically not released under the GFDL. We need proof, such as a statement on the source web site or OTRS verification, that this image is indeed under the GFDL. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:52, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found no info that image is in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found no info that image is in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image description page says that the image is originally from here, where there is no indication anything has been released, per the "Copyright © 2002 John Hayles." However, the website subsequently credits the image to this site, so the sourcing isn't very accurate -- and there's no indication rights have been released at the second site, either. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. Would have listed it myself for the same reasons, but didn't know what was the best way to do it. THis is not the only image the user has uploaded which has problems, per his talk page warnings. - BillCJ 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I noticed it as well. Looks like a copyvio unless we can get a release. --John 01:09, 23 July 2007 (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 Nv8200p (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from some campaighn website and uploader claims the image is clearly marked as copyleft, but I'm not seeing it, as far as I can tell the side just doesn't mention copyright one way or ther other, all it says is that webspace have been donated to the campaighn or some such, but that doesn't equal a GFDL release of the material. Sherool (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have to concur with Sherool. Politics rule 06:32, 25 August 2007 (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.