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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drew curtis 2007 photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image appears to have been uploaded in good faith, but the license on Flickr is actually a noncommercial/no derivatives allowed license which is incompatible with Wikipedia. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal attack and I do not appreciate this. The image in question clearly states that it can be copied under the Creative Commons license as long as the photographer is credited. This can be verified in Flickr and I clearly stated that when on the photo's page. WTF? (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a no derivative clause on the license that the flickr image was uploaded under. Unfortunately that makes the image incompatible with Wikipedia. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 06:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was not modified. It was merely copied. We're not making a "derivative work"; we're only copying and retransmitting, which is ok according to the author's statement on the Flickr website. So this should be a non-issue. I don't see why anyone would want to modify the image anyways, so a "derivative clause" should not matter. WTF? (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is not free in our sense of the word. It's tagged as CC-NC-ND. NC == non-commercial (Wikipedia material is used commercially, specifically so under our licence) and ND == no derivatives (files uploaded here are resized automatically by the software, creating instant derivatives). By that definition, this file is free, but not free enough for Wikipedia to use. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 16:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the owner can be contacted and agrees to license it under this license ((cc-by-3.0)), would that work? WTF? (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, if ((cc-by-2.0)) is not a valid license for wikipedia, then (a) why does the template exist and (b) if it is deprecated, why isn't it marked as such? WTF? (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of making personal attacks. I am not whatsoever and you doing so is not helpful. As I stated above, I believe you uploaded the image in good faith, but you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's "free media" policy. I didn't write the policy. The image is licensed under "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic", which is incompatible with Wikipedia's free licensing policy. If you want to ask the copyright holder to relicense the image to allow derivative works and commercial use, then the image will probably be fine. It doesn't really matter whether or not he picks 2.0 or 3.0, he has to allow the image to be modified and used commercially. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-commercial not allowed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. Only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are considered free licenses for our purposes. Adambro (talk) 19:07, 7 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wakir1281.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• this image likely shot of 2d art, but not mention here who is the main author and license may be wrong - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• source of main image not mention - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? The file page says the map originally came from the US Geological Survey. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 06:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In image description say "U.S. Geological Survey, 1972, limited update 1990"."Red Triangle" shark region denoted by file uploader."but uploader not give any link to verify of main U.S. Geological Survey map where he drawn a Red Triangle.Could you verify it is originally came from the US Geological Survey or not? How can I verify the main image comes from US Geological Survey or not?- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 11:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could look up the source publication in your local library. This is a frivolous nomination. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to say that go to library and search all map book? It's just ridicules. It is fair to mention all details about base image or use free map from commons.There are lots of map there of USA and California.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 11:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that this is a USGS map publication is sufficient; these maps don't really give much publication information other than date, so it's quite hard to give anything more than what this map gives. If you want to get a copy of this map, you should be able to contact the USGS to get a copy. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. The image page contains sufficient information as to the source of the image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:17, 18 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jalalpur jattan factory minar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama for Pakistan is unknown IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Did some research; Pakistan has FOP (now added to Commons page). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jalalpur jattan factory.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama for Pakistan is unknown IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Did some research; Pakistan has FOP (now added to Commons page). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jalalpur jattan masjid minar view.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama for Pakistan is unknown IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Did some research; Pakistan has FOP (now added to Commons page). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabskuantan1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no country specified freedom of panorama status unknown IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is FOP in Malaysia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabskuantan2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama for Pakistan is unknown IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is FOP in Malaysia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabskuantan3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama is unknown IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is FOP in Malaysia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tania Zaetta Turqoise Headshot (1).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Probable copyright violation. First time contributor probably does not hold the copyright to the professional photo of an Australian actress. Blurpeace 07:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Tania's PA. It is fine to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysssas (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No permission from the photographer or publisher. This photo also appeared in the LIFE Gold Coast. Bidgee (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tania Zaetta holds the rights to this image. She has given express permission to post this on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysssas (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabskuantan4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• unfree logos and incidental shots of buildings of unknown country for Freedom of panorama is unknown IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Country is Malaysia that has Freedom of panorama, someone retouch the images removing nonfree elements (Logos on the buss)--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no need for retouching (de minimis). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabskuantan5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Country is Malaysia that has Freedom of panorama, someone retouch the images removing nonfree elements (the posters)--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no need for retouching (de minimis). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabskuantan6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• unknown country unknown status for freedom of panorama IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be from a series of photos all taken in Malaysiz. There is FOP in Malaysia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabskuantan9.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is FOP in Malaysia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 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 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Batey Profile.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image looks posed and official, heavily doubt that the uploader owns the image. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:35, 5 February 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 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: Keep; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burger Baron menu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• the advertising sign is unfree IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced cc-by-sa-2.0 with fair use template and rationale. Replaced pic with lo res version.Thanks for the heads up, mate! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 11:27, 5 February 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⚡ 17:38, 5 February 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 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: Keep; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burger Baron sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced cc-by-sa-2.0 with fair use template and rationale. Replaced pic with lo res version.Thanks for the heads up, mate! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 11:35, 5 February 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⚡ 17:38, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burma shave.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 2d image of a copyrighted 3d object IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete Copyrighted, but my bet is that it's not marked copyrighted and/or not renewed. But we don't have any info about that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:14, 5 February 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 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 as G7 by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Busboys and Poets - interior - downstairs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• uncertain if posters are covered by freedom of panorama under us law IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submitted issue for second opinion here: [1]. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added speedy delete (G7) tag as this photo isn't being used. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:40, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Busboys and Poets - interior - downstairs2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submitted issue for second opinion here: [2]. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: De minimus applies here, the posters are not the main subject to the image. ww2censor (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I went ahead and uploaded a new crop without the murals. Someone who thinks the original is OK can always restore. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:36, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Busboys and Poets - interior stairs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submitted issue for second opinion here: [3]. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 11:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: De minimus applies here, the posters are not the main subject to the image. ww2censor (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I went ahead and uploaded a new crop excluding all but a very small part of one of the murals (to the left). Someone who thinks the original is OK can always restore. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:37, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CPL Hyde Park Branch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• us freedom of panorama doesn't cover signs IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Sign's text is not copyrightable, logo is there but probably de minimis. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Callio. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:59, 6 February 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 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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cerritos City Hall 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• unknown location unknown freedom of panorama status IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Major part of the photo is nonfree statue, no FOP for art in US. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep sorry, yet another lazy mass nomination. "unknown location" I'm pretty sure its in cerritos, california. If you can't slow down and check your nominations you shouldn't be doing them. Give me evidence that there is a copyright problem with this statue and this photo actually breaches it.--Crossmr (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The statue is copyrighted unless you can prove otherwise. Because the united states does not have freedom of panorama allowing the photography of artwork in public spaces, the photo is nonfree. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you demonstrate who has the copyright on the statue? Is it the city? Are things done by the city automatically public domain? Frankly the statue is probably less than 10% of the picture. The picture is captioned to illustrate the fountain, not the statue.--Crossmr (talk) 13:39, 6 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cerritos High School.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep US has FOP for buildings Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cerritos Performance Center.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep US has FOP for buildings Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 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 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.

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

• same as above IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep US has FOP for buildings. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• kept, obviously not a FOP issue – building would be old enough to be out of copyright anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 5 February 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 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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• non free art on packaging IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To quote from this template on Commons:

This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts or commons:Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.

This is no different than any of the logos tagged with this template. See commons:Category:Logos for many thousands of examples. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:52, 18 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chatuchak clocktower.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• unknown country unknown freedom of panorama IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is in the Chatuchak market in Bangkok, Thailand. Thailand has FOP. Also this is not likely to be a FOP problem even in countries that lack FOP. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree. Anyway the file was transfered to Commons. Should not have been before this DR was closed (sorry). So suggest that Commonsversion is kept at local file is deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 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 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 BorgQueen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chelsea Olympiakos CL2008 cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• unfree logo possible tv screenshot IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This image is a crop of File:Chelsea Olympiakos CL2008.jpg. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep does not appear to be a screenshot, logo is de minimis. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:06, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chennai airport.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same freedom of panorama thing as per all the previous IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all you need to do more research before your nominations. THe filename says Chennai which is a major Indian city. There is FOP in india so even if this were copyrightable it would not be a problem. But even if there were not FOP there is nothing in this scene that is copyrightable - just some luggage belts. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:08, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• unknown country freedom of panorama status IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete File page says photo in use on page Clarkdale, Arizona - pretty good clue that's where the photo is taken. No FOP in US, copyrightable work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is a "Welcome to Clarkdale" sign at the entrance to the town, it's a pretty safe assumption the town (presumably the sign owner) would have no objection to its use here. Maybe relicense as Fair Use? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC) (original uploader)[reply]

Unfortunately, permission for use on wikipedia is not sufficient. Non-free images have to meet the stringent criteria, which this image doesn't. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:19, 6 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clover Park High School entrance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• unknown country freedom of panorama status IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep country is US if nominator had looked at the image use, so is OK. ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 5 February 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 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coalinga Clock.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see above freedom of panorama IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral From US so no freedom of panorama, but is this clock copyrightable? Maybe. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 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 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Compton High School billboard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• billboard not covers by freedom of panorama us IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep just letters, not copyrightable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confucius at Overfelt-cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• unknown freedom of panorama status IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to be part of Chinese Cultural Garden at Overfelt Garden in San Jose. No FOP in US, park founded in 1971, no info on copyright notice/renewal/etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 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 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: Delete; the work was not published prior to 1923, as the uploader states. For an image to be in the public domain in the US, it must have been published prior to 1923. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackpool-GKER.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not clear that the copyright of this image has expired in the USA; as Wikimedia's servers are in the USA, images must be free to use there. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although published anonymously in 1938, and thus in the public domain in the EU, the photograph itself predates 1923 as the locomotive does not bear the mark of the successor company (the London Midland and Scottish Railway {LMS}: in whose magazine it was reproduced) on the sides of the tank nor the LMS number refered to in the caption. The LMSR was formed on 1 January 1923. Additional US tag to be applied. Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 10:03, 6 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Mohammad Khatami.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khamenei 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I'm sure the files are tagged wrong, Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk · contribs) tags all of them as a ((PD-Self)) file and there is nothing proofs that. Using Such pictures is against Iran Copyright law. The uploader did the same at fa.wiki and his files were deleted. Amirreza ^talk 15:41, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Squeaki Britto by Romero Britto.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a photo of a work of art. No FOP in the US. So I think we need a permission from the artist to keep this image. MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FruitStripe wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No disputing it's a user photo - but contains product artwork in top of frame. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is simple enough packaging to not pass the threshold of originality (e.g. Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc)..."Skyy argues, in a nutshell, that the commercial photographs of its vodka bottle are not worthy of copyright protection. We disagree. The essence of copyrightability is originality of artistic, creative expression. Given the low threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal standard, we conclude that Ets-Hokin's product shots of the Skyy vodka bottle are original works of authorship entitled to copyright protection."

I am not a commercial photograhper, and the photo in question has been released into the Public Domain by myself. <

I don't understand why we can't take a photograph of an item in full public display..like these photos that include logos, names and designs:

If we photograph a field of patented wheat, or a car on the highway with "Chevrolet" visible or a copyrighted 'designer' breed dog on the sidewalk, that is illegal??????

xBitterSweetHorror (talk) 18:44, 18 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bobs wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo - No visible indication uploader is 'owner' of the logo rights Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is simple enough packaging to not pass the threshold of originality (e.g. Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc)..."Skyy argues, in a nutshell, that the commercial photographs of its vodka bottle are not worthy of copyright protection. We disagree. The essence of copyrightability is originality of artistic, creative expression. Given the low threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal standard, we conclude that Ets-Hokin's product shots of the Skyy vodka bottle are original works of authorship entitled to copyright protection."

I am not a commercial photograhper, and the photo in question has been released into the Public Domain by myself.

I don't understand why we can't take a photograph of an item in full public display..like these photos that include logos, names and designs:

If we photograph a field of patented wheat, or a car on the highway with "Chevrolet" visible or a copyrighted 'designer' breed dog on the sidewalk, that is illegal??????

I feel that its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. It is being used for informational purposes only;

2. It is the logo of a company for which no equivalent free alternative exists or could be created without infringing on copyright;

3. It does not infringe upon the original copyright holder's ability to profit from the media; and

4. It contributes significantly to the article in which it is used by identifying its subject.

xBitterSweetHorror (talk) 18:43, 18 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FruitStripes wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Product artwork - Unlikely uploader owns rights to design Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is simple enough packaging to not pass the threshold of originality (e.g. Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc)..."Skyy argues, in a nutshell, that the commercial photographs of its vodka bottle are not worthy of copyright protection. We disagree. The essence of copyrightability is originality of artistic, creative expression. Given the low threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal standard, we conclude that Ets-Hokin's product shots of the Skyy vodka bottle are original works of authorship entitled to copyright protection."

I am not a commercial photograhper, and the photo in question has been released into the Public Domain by myself.

I don't understand why we can't take a photograph of an item in full public display..like these photos that include logos, names and designs:

If we photograph a field of patented wheat, or a car on the highway with "Chevrolet" visible or a copyrighted 'designer' breed dog on the sidewalk, that is illegal??????

xBitterSweetHorror (talk) 18:43, 18 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marksworkwarehouse37.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo - But Canadian so is FOP applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:21, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hulya Avsar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 3 tineye matches - But all at much reduced res Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:39, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rolex 55 Car.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Advertising Artwork - FOP Applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:08, 5 February 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 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 Caribbean H.Q. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Sheik.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image watermark suggests possible source ... Which is not nessacrily the uploader Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panajot pano.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Likely copyvio from a commercial press photo. Currently shown in Google image search cache as having been in use on 24-ore.com, a commercial Albanian news site [4], although the image link now gives a 404 error there. Was uploaded here as "copyrighted, no rights reserved", pointing to an earlier upload on sq-wiki as its only source (sq:Skeda:Panajot pano.jpg). Copyright abuse on sq-wiki is notoriously common; for instance, the same original sq-wiki user also uploaded sq:Skeda:James Stewart.jpg with the same "norightsreserved" claim, all lacking source and authorship attribution. Thus almost certainly a copyvio; should in fact have been speedied under F9. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evile2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of ownership, uploader seems to have a history of uploading non-free images as free. Rehevkor ✉ 22:43, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FearFactory 2010 Tour poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of ownership of image seemingly uploaded for promotional reasons. Unlikely to be owner regardless. Rehevkor ✉ 22:49, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wildhearts 2009 Tour poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Poster used for promotional purposes with no evidence of ownership, as above. Rehevkor ✉ 22:51, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porcupine Tree Tour Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Poster used for promotional purposes with no evidence of ownership, as above. Rehevkor ✉ 22:52, 5 February 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NapalmDeath Tour 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Poster used for promotional purposes with no evidence of ownership, as above. Rehevkor ✉ 22:53, 5 February 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.