The result of the discussion was: keep, changing license to PD-text. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: keep. I fail to see what the problem is here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned images; possibly due to the unique background might not meet criteria for inclusion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was: Delete. If someone thinks they can make a valid fair-use claim, advise me on talk page and I will undelete. After Midnight 0001 13:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the uploader there is a tag that claims that the image is ineligible for copyright, I do not agree. The clearly-legible terms of the contract central to the picture are certainly a creative work and thus attain copyright status. I know that this has been discussed here before (at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 14#File:Parkingticketcontract.jpg), so I would like to address some of the arguments made for keeping. For one, I agree with Gx872op's claim that the logo is not eligible for copyright, as it is a map of the United States colored in red, white, and blue with some text on it. Next, while Reswobsic is correct in that the name of the company and its phone number do not gain copyright protection, he makes the (unsubstantiated) claim that this contract is the exact same copy of text used on parking tickets and thus is not authored by PC of A. First, even if PC of A isn't the original author, someone else has to be the author, and we have no indication that the copyright on this text was lost or expired, or that the text was freely licensed. I would also like to address the comments made as to the copyrightability of legal text. The specific word choice and construction of a legal document can indeed be protected by copyright. Allowing this document to have copyright would not prevent other people from including in their contracts similar clauses that are similarly worded, for in that instance the expression of the clause merges with the idea intended in including that clause (such as disclaimer of loss or theft). However, this does not apply here as we are not writing a contract or discussing the specific terms of the contract, but just including a contract of the form we happen to discuss. To this extent, I don't think the merger doctrine applies here to keep this in the public domain. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fences and windows (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]