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. Closing this early as there seems to be a strong consensus to do so and a result satisfactory to all participants has been determined. A different image under the same name at Wikimedia Commons is now visible. (and yes, I'm closing the discussion which I started. I feel that that is acceptable in this case.. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Ticket is presumably copyrighted. Just because it has held & scanned by uploader doesn't allow its release into the public domain without the ticket creator's permission. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems that the original uploader has stopped contributing to wikipedia. Have you tried to contact him via e-mail? Could we save the most important part, the autograph, by cropping so that nearly none of the ticket is displayed? This might allay the copyright fears, while allowing the autograph to stand. Edhubbard ( talk) 14:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I haven't contacted him. I really don't know whether or not that would work with the copyright... the ticket itself would still be there, even if just not all of it. This is a file that a fair-use rationale could probably be created for without too much difficulty. Now, if someone wanted to use Photoshop or some other program to remove the background of the ticket and just leave the design of the signature, that would probably be OK (not completely positive, though). Actually, I could do that if it would make the image be considered free... any other opinions on this? – Drilnoth ( T • C) 14:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Does Dale Earnhardt, Jr. own the copyright to his signature? If so, photoshopping won't get rid of the fair use problem. Awadewit ( talk) 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

If so, we have a major problem across all of wikipedia. See for example, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton. Those signatures are variously labeled as being ineligible for copyright either because they contain "information that is common property and contains no original authorship" or because they are the work of the government. The government exemption wouldn't apply here, but the "no original authorship" exemption would. Edhubbard ( talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

According to this Commons page, most signatures in the US are not copyright protected (interestingly, they are in the UK). That makes me think that photoshopping would be the best bet - it would create a free image. Awadewit ( talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay; in that case I can photoshop & reupload it tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. That seems like the best course of action. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

(undent) How about this? The licensing is a little complicated, since it really is {{PD-ineligible}} but that is not an option in the pulldown menu, so I put the ineligible in the summary and used CC3.0 for the licensing. Thoughts? Do you want to edit it a little more? Change format from jpg? Edhubbard ( talk) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm a little confused by the CC3.0 license. What is wrong with PD license? Awadewit ( talk) 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The only PD license that was available in the pull-down menu when I uploaded the file was PD government. I wanted to give it the same PD-ineligible license that I did with the tag, but it wasn't listed as an option in the pull-down menus. So, I gave it the CC3.0, which at least allows continued sharing and editing. Perhaps I missed something in the pull-down menus? Cheers, Edhubbard ( talk) 13:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks good; I think that PD-ineligable makes sense, and the CC-by can be removed. Sorry I didn't get a chance to Photoshop it myself; it kind of fell off my radar because there's been a lot going on for me both on-wiki and IRL. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 15:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok, I was able to manually edit licensing section to remove the unnecessary CC-by tag, and to put the PD-ineligible in the right place. I've also changed the Dale Earnhardt, Jr. page to use this free image. Should we now delete the old, unfree image, and close this discussion? How do we do that? Edhubbard ( talk) 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Everything looks ok to me. The non-free image can now be deleted. Awadewit ( talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not an admin, so I don't think I can delete it, but I agree with Awadewit. Drilnoth, I guess we'll leave the honors to you. Edhubbard ( talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed the image from 2000 NASCAR Winston Cup Series, because just using the sig doesn't really make sense there. I'll delete the old image and close this discussion shortly. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 00:13, 17 April 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 Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Low resolution shot taken from elsewhere. The uploader and his meatpuppets became surprisingly quiet when asked for the original. Not used, as a stronger image is used as the lead. J Milburn ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

delete, per request. Already had some obvious copyvios from this user and sockpupets on Commons, not trustful. -- Martin H. ( talk) 19:53, 17 April 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 Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Apparently a commercial logo. I doubt it has been released into the public domain. J Milburn ( talk) 11:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This logo, which is owned by ABS-CBN broadcasting, requires a fair use rationale to justify its inclusion in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation. I have left a note at the article talk page requesting that such a rationale be provided. Awadewit ( talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The editors at the article have decided that this logo is unnecessary and have asked us to delete it. Awadewit ( talk) 04:07, 16 April 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 Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Screenshot of MTV program, claimed to be public domain. Orphaned image. Radiant chains ( talk) 15:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

As this image appeared on TV program on MTV, it is owned by MTV. It would require a fair use justification. However, it is currently orphaned and therefore no fair use justification can be provided. This should be deleted. Awadewit ( talk) 23:36, 12 April 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 Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a 2D image of a 3D sculpture or other work of art, and therefore the image can't be free. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 17:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

We need to establish where the sculpture is. Freedom of panorama varies by country. I've left a note at the uploader's talk page. Awadewit ( talk) 23:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

See discussion at User talk:Awadewit#Dinosaur. Awadewit ( talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This image was taken in the US, making it a derivative work, and the uploader has decided not to pursue the necessary permission that would allow Wikipedia to retain the image. We should delete this image. Awadewit ( talk) 03:35, 16 April 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.