From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
December 13
File:AshingtonAFC1898.jpg
- 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, as all concerns appear to have been rectified. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AshingtonAFC1898.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not public domain, as not published, not 130 years old, and no photographer info. Wmcduff ( talk) 13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Any reason why it could not be PD-UK, for an unknown author is +70 years which is well past for an image 110 years old. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Hmm. PD-UK for this photograph would be "Copyright expires 70 years after the work was made available to the public if within 70 years of creation" according to the length chart at the bottom of Copyright law of the United Kingdom. Problem is when was the photo made available to the public? Would it be safe to assume that this picture would have been displayed nearly immediately as that's generally why a team photo is made, for display? - Wmcduff ( talk) 22:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Although no evidence I would not have thought a team photo would have remained unpublished for forty or fifty years. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Switch the licensing to PD-UK and add "As "Copyright expires 70 years after the work was made available to the public if within 70 years of creation" for photographs created before 1 June 1957 when the author is unknown, and a team photograph created for an 1898-99 cup winning team was almost certainly made available to the public immediately, this image is almost certainly public domain."? - Wmcduff ( talk) 17:18, 20 December 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.
File:JAPANIZAM.png
- 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 Beeblebrox ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:JAPANIZAM.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logos would be under copyright protection by the owner. — Farix ( t | c) 13:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Actually the description page contradicts its own license, saying "Sakurabana NGO" owns the logo. With the article on the festival having been deleted already, this is pretty clearly an orphaned non-free file, I've deleted it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:20, 13 December 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.
File:Emb - Vwd3LX-2.gif
- 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 Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Emb - Vwd3LX-2.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader may have created this particular image themselves, but it's unlikely they created the seal in the first place. [1] Uploader has a history of poor/incorrect attribution of uploaded images. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:14, 13 December 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.
File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG
 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 December 27. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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; This is a screenshot of malware/virus. Malware is not afforded copyright protection. After Midnight 0001 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- The spyware text displayed (and central to this image) is creative enough to gain copyright protection, so I don't think this is a free image (despite the fact it was taken rendered in a free software browser). RJaguar3 | u | t 22:24, 13 December 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.
File:Virusheat1.png
- 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 After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Virusheat1.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I don't think User:Jennysue is the author of the spyware seen in the screenshot; also, there is no evidence of permission given by the rogue application copyright holders. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:53, 13 December 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
December 13
File:AshingtonAFC1898.jpg
- 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, as all concerns appear to have been rectified. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:AshingtonAFC1898.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not public domain, as not published, not 130 years old, and no photographer info. Wmcduff ( talk) 13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Any reason why it could not be PD-UK, for an unknown author is +70 years which is well past for an image 110 years old. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Hmm. PD-UK for this photograph would be "Copyright expires 70 years after the work was made available to the public if within 70 years of creation" according to the length chart at the bottom of Copyright law of the United Kingdom. Problem is when was the photo made available to the public? Would it be safe to assume that this picture would have been displayed nearly immediately as that's generally why a team photo is made, for display? - Wmcduff ( talk) 22:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Although no evidence I would not have thought a team photo would have remained unpublished for forty or fifty years. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Switch the licensing to PD-UK and add "As "Copyright expires 70 years after the work was made available to the public if within 70 years of creation" for photographs created before 1 June 1957 when the author is unknown, and a team photograph created for an 1898-99 cup winning team was almost certainly made available to the public immediately, this image is almost certainly public domain."? - Wmcduff ( talk) 17:18, 20 December 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.
File:JAPANIZAM.png
- 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 Beeblebrox ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:JAPANIZAM.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logos would be under copyright protection by the owner. — Farix ( t | c) 13:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Actually the description page contradicts its own license, saying "Sakurabana NGO" owns the logo. With the article on the festival having been deleted already, this is pretty clearly an orphaned non-free file, I've deleted it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:20, 13 December 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.
File:Emb - Vwd3LX-2.gif
- 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 Melesse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Emb - Vwd3LX-2.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader may have created this particular image themselves, but it's unlikely they created the seal in the first place. [1] Uploader has a history of poor/incorrect attribution of uploaded images. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:14, 13 December 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.
File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 December 27. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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; This is a screenshot of malware/virus. Malware is not afforded copyright protection. After Midnight 0001 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- The spyware text displayed (and central to this image) is creative enough to gain copyright protection, so I don't think this is a free image (despite the fact it was taken rendered in a free software browser). RJaguar3 | u | t 22:24, 13 December 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.
File:Virusheat1.png
- 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 After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Virusheat1.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I don't think User:Jennysue is the author of the spyware seen in the screenshot; also, there is no evidence of permission given by the rogue application copyright holders. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:53, 13 December 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.