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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Singapore Slingers Orchestra Performance Banner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I think that the banner qualifies as a two-dimensional artwork and therefore enjoys copyright protection. Dianna (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me open by saying delete away, if you must. I'm uncertain how to respond meaningfully to this assertion of possible copyright infringement, but as an attorney, I must say I personally find the assertion wildly hyper-technical in this case, and far reaching beyond the point of reasonableness. Clearly I did not post the banner itself, nor did I post a photo cropped so tightly as to be tantamount to posting the banner "qua" the banner. Put another way, no one could could reasonably confuse my photograph featuring the banner with the banner itself. The map is not the territory. Rather, I clearly posted a photograph of a space (in this case a performance space) in which the banner hung prominently, during a performance. That is to say, my photograph depicts the banner actually in use, as a tool, in this case a decorated piece of fabric, denoting for the audience which band was playing on stage, as an identifying symbol or flag of sorts. If this sort of personal photograph qualifies as copyright infringement, I would have to conclude that any photo of any room or other space in which any banner, tapestry, needlepoint, painting, drawing, photograph, etc. might be featured on the walls or otherwise visible in the room must also potentially be considered a candidate for deletion. (And for all I know, that may be the way this is done, and I beg your pardon.) For the sake of circumscribing and thus hopefully solving the problem, I also have a personal photograph of the band in question performing, with the same banner hanging at one side of the photograph. Would that photograph also be a candidate for deletion based on potential copyright violation, since that photograph also includes the full banner? If not, why not? I also have a photo of one band member playing an instrument, with the banner also in the photo, behind him, partially obscured. What about that one? What if it were a tight close-up of the banner, but a rubber duck were in front of it? I ask in all seriousness, not at all in jest. The photo I posted certainly features the banner as its main subject, but it plainly depicts more than just the banner: it depicts also the easel from which the banner hung, the walls, some stage-prop columns, some empty chairs, etc. My point being, I am unclear where one would legitimately draw the line you suggest I have crossed. In the alternative, could the creator of the banner itself provide her own permission for the photo to be posted? (In which case, how could she provide permission that would also cover the copyright duly attaching to my photograph?) If there is a ready answer or solution that I can provide, I'm happy to try to fix the problem. Otherwise, as I say, delete away if you must. azaner 03:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaner (talk • contribs)

I leave the question of deletion up to the Wiki gods, as they see fit. May they keep the following in mind:

1. I have not done exhaustive legal research on this topic, and do not have that kind of time; but based on a quick scan of the caselaw, I see federal precedent standing for the proposition that a banner constructed for hire and serving as advertising does not necessarily constitute a work of art to which copyright protection adheres.

2. I believe it to be legitimately arguable that this banner is three-dimensional as opposed to two-dimensional. It incorporates tassels, fringe, raised lettering, rhinestone-like attachments, and other 3D elements. Moreover, I believe this particular banner is readable from the back as well as the front (or should I say, has two fronts) although I cannot prove this based on the photograph alone.

3. Finally, I have obtained today express consent from the designer and creator of the banner, Danielle Tolentino, to post the photograph in question. How I am supposed to prove that I have this express permission remains unknown to me. But I will amend the data attached to the file to attest to that permission.

I will comment no further unless asked to. Thanks, azaner 21:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaner (talk • contribs)

The applicable law is what we call freedom of panorama. In the United States, a copyrightable work of art, whether two- or three-dimensional, is protected by copyright even if displayed in a public place, and the permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for us to display the photograph here. For photographs where the object is merely in the background or it is partially obscured, the relevant guideline can be found at Commons:De minimis. Your question about empty chairs, the easel, and other everyday objects is answered at Commons:Derivative works.

If you have obtained consent from the creator of the banner, you need to ask them to send an email to our OTRS team using the instructions found at Commons:OTRS. An OTRS ticket will then be attached to the file showing that the creator of the banner has given permission for the image to be displayed here. -- Dianna (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2013 (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 G12 by Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:KS Sedgwick County EMS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed to be public domain, but the Sedgwick County EMS website quite clearly states "© 2013 - Sedgwick County, Kansas" Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:36, 25 January 2013 (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 F5 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• copyright image, no valid fur, logo for non-notable business -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 07:00, 25 January 2013 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 25 January 2013 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:CANET Guillaume-24x30-2004.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyrighted 86.161.224.40 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2013 (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: Keep due to receipt of OTRS permission (non-admin closure). Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Gommon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is a self portrait of David Gommon which was published before the age of 10, but the man looks a lot older than 10 years on the portrait. Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete British artist, died in 1987 (1987+70) = 2057. Not even PD in UK . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any free images of Gommon? Since he died over 25 years ago, could we keep this under a fair-use claim? Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 23:47, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

I've seen no sign of any photographic images of the artist. I believe the uploader is trying to get formal permission to release the image. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Received from Peter Gommon--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that permission is now received via OTRS, can we close this dicussion? Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 00:55, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

how do we remove the unfree files warning box now that we have the permissions in place? cheers --Gommoart (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2013 (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.