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 Quadell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Photographer does not own copyright to statue. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strongly oppose deletion, undeletion requested. It is completely unwarranted. It is ridiculous that a photo cannot include a statue or any other outdoor object on a public street, regardless of the object's copyright. It is the freedom of panorama. Even if the law somehow fails to include this obvious provision, the photo is still fair use and therefore should be restored with such a license tag and rationale.  – radiojon ( talk) 14:21, 12 May 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 Quadell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Appears to be copyvio from here. Uploader claims to be copyright holder, but image is from a major studio and is watermarked. Radiant chains ( talk) 06:14, 28 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 Quadell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Non-watermarked version of File:Billa1.jpg. Widely available on the internet, unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. Radiant chains ( talk) 07:08, 28 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 Quadell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Copied from [1]. Rettetast ( talk) 13:32, 28 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 Quadell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Copied from [2]. Rettetast ( talk) 13:34, 28 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 discussion was: The Windows parts have been cropped out, so it's now uncontroversially free.

Displays copyrighted content (Windows interface) Stifle ( talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The look of the "Windows interface" is not copyrightable and the icons fall under De minimis. Tothwolf ( talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The look of the Windows interface absolutely is copyrightable, though this image may not infringe on that copyright. The icons may well be de minimis... but it should be possible to crop the image. Then again, it isn't included anywhere, and was only useful in a comment nearly 2 years ago. Is it still needed? Is it okay with you if it's deleted? – Quadell ^{( talk)} 13:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I disagree on the Windows interface look being copyrightable. The actual code/implementation is certainly copyrightable but the look itself is not. See Look and feel and Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.. I have no opinion on this file itself but "Displays copyrighted content (Windows interface)" is not a valid argument and reason for deletion. Tothwolf ( talk) 13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

For that fact, there are a lot more screenshots linked in that discussion than just this one. Tothwolf ( talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Lotus v. Borland is the relevant case here. I quote from our article: "The implementation is subject to copyright. The public interface may also be subject to copyright to the extent that it contains expression (for example, the appearance of an icon)." It held that the copyright for the "look and feel" did not cover the sequence of clicks used to operate a menu, for instance, but that other visual aspects were eligible for copyright. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 20:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

...and I notice you stayed away from Apple vs Microsoft and other such cases. An image showing part of the "Windows interface" is still not a valid reason for deletion. This very issue has come up on the village pump on commons in the past and arguments went both ways there too. Tothwolf ( talk) 21:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete - As this is a portion of GFDL text and formatting, technically this would need to include the complete history of the portal and transcluded sections up to the point that the image was taken. It's not useful anyways. Also, De minimis doesn't really apply as this is a full-resolution screen-shot, and the icons are full-resolution. If you can copyright a 16X16 icon, then a faithful reproduction is also copyright. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Any GFDL concerns can be dealt with by adding this backlink [3] to the File: page. I'll do so now. Tothwolf ( talk) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep: Fine, if you want to play a game of keep vs delete instead of discussing issues that have been debated to death on Commons already. Speedy Keep per my above comments. Tothwolf ( talk) 23:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what use this image would ever have. It was used to show an old bug and is not image linked on any page. I know this discussion started as being about how free it is, but there is no reason to hold a second discussion to see if it is also encyclopedic. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, it is linked here and discussions such as this one are archived for reference purposes. Images are not required to be "encyclopedic", they only have to follow the image policy, which this one does. Furthermore neither useless nor unencyclopedic are valid discussion arguments here. This nomination and File:GOLD screenshot.gif below were both bad nominations and this one should have been closed as keep long ago. See m:Avoid copyright paranoia
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 17:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If "not useful" is an invalid deletion argument for images, then there are several thousands of images at WP:FFD that need to be brought to DRV. And still, De minimus does not apply here. Can someone copy and paste the 16x16 icons of IE and Windows and Excel and McAffee and everything else and those would still be valid, legal GFDL documents? Because that's what "free" means. It's not even a JPEG, it's a pixel-perfect GIF. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Attempting to change the subject and repeating the same false arguments isn't going to change anything here. Your GFDL concerns have been addressed and dealt with. Any icons that may be potentially copyrighted fall under De minimis as they are not the primary focus of this screenshot. Individual icons that are subject to copyright would not be de minimis because they would not be part of a larger work. I suggest you read this reply from Mike Godwin from the "Copyrighted Package" discussion on Commons.
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I was referring to GFDL as the license under which this image falls, and therefor all derivative works must also be GFDL. So an icon copied from this GIF would also have to be GFDL (as far as fixing the previous concern, GFDL attribution is a little more complicated than that, but as WP has never done this properly, why start now?). De minimus has no bearing on pixel-perfect GIF screenshots of software, it is used in reference to photos. I'm not sure how I am distracting the conversation, but whatever. I've uploaded a cropped version, which while still being useless crap, is at least free. I still say delete, but I don't really care. Good luck with all of your future conversations! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Your arguments contain numerous elements of wikilawyering. When one argument hasn't worked, you try another, then another, then another. This specific issue dealing with screenshots has been discussed ad nauseum on Commons and editors there have not agreed either. The only thing that has come out of the discussions on Commons has been paranoia in one fraction of editors to the point where some people will even crop screenshots taken on a Free/Open Source OS that uses a window manager that copies the look and feel of the Windows OS. It's quite clear you are not an expert in this area and your continued assertions that part of this image is some sort of copyright violation does not magically make it so.
Despite your claim otherwise the icons in this screenshot are a clear case of de minimis. This screenshot is no different from any of the other 1000s of screenshots of Free/Open Source software taken on a Windows or Mac platform that happen to include the likeness of the host system's user interface. The image uses a {{ wikipedia-screenshot}} multi-license template because it contains text from Wikipedia and the likeness of the MediaWiki software. The MediaWiki software is under the GPL license and the text is currently under the GFDL. The text may be copied under the terms of the GFDL.
This image was a bad nomination here and has only served to exacerbate the growing problem of copyright paranoia.
-- Tothwolf ( talk) 03:14, 18 May 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 discussion was: Not deleted

Uploader is unlikely to have the right to release this image into the public domain. Stifle ( talk) 13:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Devin Cook is the software author, he has every right to release a screenshot of his own software into the public domain if he so chooses. The other screenshots such as File:GOLD_Builder_v3.4.gif are already on Commons, this one should be moved there as well. Tothwolf ( talk) 23:11, 9 May 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 Quadell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If the image is from the Syndey Morning Herald then I'm doubtful that the uploader is the copyright holder. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:18, 28 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.