Already tagged non-free, out of scope. Stifle ( talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
book cover, most likely uploader is not the (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 00:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
appears to be newspaper (book?) scan - thus uploader not the (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Some of the constituent images in this collage are not free. Uploader does not hold the rights to the constituent images, so can't release it under GFDL. Ragib ( talk) 01:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The uploader claims to be the copyright holder. The image may be either public domain being old, or the company that used the image may still hold the copyright. The image's page does not state when it was created or when it was used. Rockfang ( talk) 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The image was from a publication which was published by the family company. There is no copyright statement on it. Johnkendall1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC). reply
The above comment was from me. BTW the company no longer exists. Johnkendall1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC). reply
I realize that you can't trademark letters, but I'm not certain that applies here. Worth a review, if nothing else. fuzzy510 ( talk) 06:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Viva Films is the likely owner of the image, unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Based on users previous uploads, I am not 100% certain whether the claim of copyright ownership is valid. ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 07:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Artefacts indicate that this has been taken from a video source, most likely from the soap itself, a non-free one. — neuro (talk) (review) 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No evidence of CC at source. — neuro (talk) (review) 09:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Based on users previous uploads, I am not 100% certain whether the claim of copyright ownership is valid. ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 09:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Artifacts indicate image was likely taken from a TV show ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 09:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Bjweeks ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Source states "Copyright 2002 Animo Magazine. All Rights Reserved" — neuro (talk) (review) 09:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Blatant copyvio, [2] [3] — neuro (talk) (review) 10:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Blatantly unfree pamphlet. — neuro (talk) (review) 10:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Website states "©Copyright Greynium Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd" — neuro (talk) (review) 13:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Taken from the website [5], but no evidence of release under the license indicated or evidence of ownership by the uploader -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I was given permission by Charlotte Laws' office to post the photo on Wikipedia. You can contact her office to verify permission or I could ask them for an email or letter to this effect if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaggybucket ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-free, from 'Fars News Agency'. — neuro (talk) (review) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Copyrighted content is clearly not de minimis - the image is non-free as such. — neuro (talk) (review) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Erroneous Nomination. When following the
listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext
" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=
". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at
WT:PUF or at my talk page.
AnomieBOT
⚡
20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
the source is probably not free Hidro ( talk) 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Already tagged non-free, out of scope. Stifle ( talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
book cover, most likely uploader is not the (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 00:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
appears to be newspaper (book?) scan - thus uploader not the (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Some of the constituent images in this collage are not free. Uploader does not hold the rights to the constituent images, so can't release it under GFDL. Ragib ( talk) 01:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The uploader claims to be the copyright holder. The image may be either public domain being old, or the company that used the image may still hold the copyright. The image's page does not state when it was created or when it was used. Rockfang ( talk) 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The image was from a publication which was published by the family company. There is no copyright statement on it. Johnkendall1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC). reply
The above comment was from me. BTW the company no longer exists. Johnkendall1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC). reply
I realize that you can't trademark letters, but I'm not certain that applies here. Worth a review, if nothing else. fuzzy510 ( talk) 06:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Viva Films is the likely owner of the image, unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Based on users previous uploads, I am not 100% certain whether the claim of copyright ownership is valid. ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 07:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Artefacts indicate that this has been taken from a video source, most likely from the soap itself, a non-free one. — neuro (talk) (review) 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No evidence of CC at source. — neuro (talk) (review) 09:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Based on users previous uploads, I am not 100% certain whether the claim of copyright ownership is valid. ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 09:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Rjd0060 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Artifacts indicate image was likely taken from a TV show ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 09:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Bjweeks ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Source states "Copyright 2002 Animo Magazine. All Rights Reserved" — neuro (talk) (review) 09:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Blatant copyvio, [2] [3] — neuro (talk) (review) 10:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Blatantly unfree pamphlet. — neuro (talk) (review) 10:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Website states "©Copyright Greynium Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd" — neuro (talk) (review) 13:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Taken from the website [5], but no evidence of release under the license indicated or evidence of ownership by the uploader -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I was given permission by Charlotte Laws' office to post the photo on Wikipedia. You can contact her office to verify permission or I could ask them for an email or letter to this effect if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaggybucket ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-free, from 'Fars News Agency'. — neuro (talk) (review) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Stifle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Copyrighted content is clearly not de minimis - the image is non-free as such. — neuro (talk) (review) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Erroneous Nomination. When following the
listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext
" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=
". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at
WT:PUF or at my talk page.
AnomieBOT
⚡
20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
the source is probably not free Hidro ( talk) 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply