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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm challenging this editor's assertion that he owns this photo; it appears "professional" and a similar photo obviously from the same photo shoot appears online here: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrity/photos/william-levy.htm — TAnthony^Talk 01:15, 18 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned; probably unfree as most logos are, if uploader is copyright holder than they need to follow the guidelines at WP:IOWN. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:49, 18 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has uploaded three images of authors with similar descriptions. They are all tagged with a licensing tag asserting that the uploader is the copyright holder, but in the summary, the uploader states that the subject of the photo is the copyright holder. B (talk) 03:49, 18 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has uploaded three images of authors with similar descriptions. They are all tagged with a licensing tag asserting that the uploader is the copyright holder, but in the summary, the uploader states that the subject of the photo is the copyright holder. B (talk) 03:49, 18 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has uploaded three images of authors with similar descriptions. They are all tagged with a licensing tag asserting that the uploader is the copyright holder, but in the summary, the uploader states that the subject of the photo is the copyright holder. B (talk) 03:49, 18 August 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Kept, I believe the ((PD-US)) would be appropriate here, the pic was taken to show both cover & spine, thus not necessarily transformative. Skier Dude (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a public domain book. Problem: the photo is of the book at a 45 degree angle, so it's not a slavish copy of a 2D object. I would think this photo would be sufficiently transformative to be copyrightable. B (talk) 04:12, 18 August 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toys have to be considered copyrighted. This is a derivative work. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I am the uploader from 2 years ago, and I uploaded them before it was made clear that self-made pictures of toys were considered non-free pictures of a scuplture. This picture should probably be deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 13:58, 18 August 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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toys have to be considered copyrighted. This is a derivative work. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I am the uploader from 2 years ago, and I uploaded them before it was made clear that self-made pictures of toys were considered non-free pictures of a scuplture. This picture should probably be deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 13:58, 18 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extremely unlikely that this program is distributed under a Free Art License. As such, screenshots are likely copyrighted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:16, 18 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toys have to be considered copyrighted unless we have a reason to believe otherwise. This image is a derivative work and therefore non-free. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 18 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

low resolution image with no meta data uploaded by user who has uploaded copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 18 August 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

low resolution image with no meta data uploaded by user who has uploaded copyright violations MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 18 August 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: withdrawn Skier Dude (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason to believe that the logo is released under a CC license- I can't see anything on the source website. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the maintainer, developer, and designer of the Chyrp project; the logo was given to me by a friend who made it for the project. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia, is there anything I can do to confirm its license? Would putting a page on the chyrp.net site for it be enough, or something more formal? (edit: I have added a page for the logo: Chyrp: Logo) Alex Suraci (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely fine, sorry for any inconvenience. Consider this nomination withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 18 August 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Withdrawn. Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image description says it's a press photo and the image shows up online here and here. Shubinator (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But description also says that it was uploaded by Jscott (talk · contribs) who is Jason Scott Sadofsky according to Talk:Jason Scott Sadofsky (which was added by admin Phil Boswell (talk · contribs) in 2005). So it would can assume that it is his decision to license it under CC-SA and if he chose to do so, that makes it fine for use here. It's irrelevant that it has also been used as a press photo. Regards SoWhy 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks SoWhy, didn't notice that before. This nomination is withdrawn. Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 20 August 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.