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: non-free, deleted

The image is tagged as being in the public domain, but the description says "available for any non-commercial use". Note that there is a version on Commons that probably should be deleted if that one is. -- Luk ^talk 07:33, 15 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 Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible unfree file. No evidence to prove the logo for the Culture village article was created by uploader. Neu_tralle 11:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is the logo of the culture village , and i have provided the license of this image. it cant be unfree because apart from this there are alot of Logo images in wikipedia articles... regards.

Colossal (talk) 10:19, 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 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. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the Coca Cola logo being trademarked and not eligible for copyright. I can't understand the design of its cans being non-copyrightable, nor that the 'creator' (the uploader, not the creator) has rights to release this image. This isn't a Coke can in context of another larger work. It's a Coke can all by itself. See also [1] "Coca-Cola owns copyright in the design of its bottles". See also File:Cocacola caffeine free.jpg Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A blank drinks can is not copyrightable, the Coca-Cola logo is PD, and all that's left is a red and white line. You'd have a tough time convincing me that this clears the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Stifle that this does not pass the threshold of originality. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Cocacola caffeine free.jpg, File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg, File:Cc-bcv.jpg, File:Diet Pepsi Jazz.jpg, and many others. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stifle is correct in this case and the same rationale applies to several (but not all) of the images linked by Hammersoft, which are currently incorrectly tagged as copyrighted works. There are two copyright issues here: logo design and object design. The latter is a non-issue from the start since the design would not pass the threshold of originality for copyright protection. Meanwhile the copyright on the logo expired quite a while ago, so that's not an issue either. All we are left with is the photographer's exclusive right over the photo and that photographer has released it to the public domain. Therefore, the image is correctly tagged. -- Hux (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stifle. Ⓔcw.ⓣechnoid.ⓓweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 19:51, 13 June 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: Not deleted, free image

This is clearly a Copyvio being purported as a PD. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 20:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in the public domain because it was published in the U.S. prior to 1978 without a copyright notice (((PD-Pre1978))). IronGargoyle (talk) 20:40, 15 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.