From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 14
File:JohnnyBallBirmingham1998.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:JohnnyBallBirmingham1998.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Licence here is inconsistent with that on Flickr. Uploader/author should make it plain which licence he/she intends to use as release. Rodhull andemu 00:40, 14 July 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:MiamiBeachSeniorHighBuilding2and3.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Appears to be taken at the exact same time on the exact same day from the exact same place as the Google Street View van: [1] Mosmof ( talk) 04:22, 14 July 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:JIIIMEISEN.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:JIIIMEISEN.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader ( User:Amandabilliot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) was indefinitely blocked some time ago due to extended sock puppetry. Part of this sock puppetry was to create fake pages using images which were claimed to be taken by the uploader but included no EXIF data and are more likely to have been copied from a non-free source. There is no evidence that this sock puppeteer took these photos or has permission to issue them as public domain. The uploader has never responded to questions on their talk pages about these images even though around 40 images have been questioned. Fæ ( talk) 11:03, 14 July 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:Lions Badge.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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Lions Badge.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- WP:FU image not in use we also have File:Logo_Lions_Rugby.svg Gnevin ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 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:Springbok Original.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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Springbok Original.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- WP:FU image not in use and better version found here File:South_Africa_national_rugby_union_team.svg Gnevin ( talk) 13:58, 14 July 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:Wales Original.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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Wales Original.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- [WP:FU]] image not in use and better version found here File:Wru_logo.png Gnevin ( talk) 13:59, 14 July 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:Tuskers.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 discussion was: keep, file does not belong in this venue as it is licensed under fair use. Files for deletion is that way. — ξ xplicit 02:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Tuskers.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- WP:FU image not in use Gnevin ( talk) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:29, 27 July 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:Warrenhouse.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Warrenhouse.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Nothing on the source page indicates it's available under a free license. Esrever ( klaT) 15:16, 14 July 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:Frankie sandford LIVE.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Frankie sandford LIVE.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- EXIF shows Mike Marsland as copyright owner while User:SitDownOnIt gives user's name as Natalie. This is also thousands of dollars worth of camera and most likely a professional picture. Uploader has numerous bad image notices on her (his?) talk page). Wknight94 talk 16:54, 14 July 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:Girls Can't Catch.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Girls Can't Catch.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Doubtful that this was taken by the uploader. Appears to be a posed professional photograph. Uploader has claimed other professional-looking photos as own work and has talk page with numerous bad image notices. Wknight94 talk 16:59, 14 July 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:KoreanWarMemorialRear.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:KoreanWarMemorialRear.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unless the inclusion of the sculptures is considered incidental, it has been clearly established that these photos are derivative works of a non-free image in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. The licensing here would thus false. I think that the soldiers inclusion should be considered incidental, but I nominate it for deletion so this can be established by consensus. Jorfer ( talk) 20:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- I thought they might be incidental as well, but incidental to what? I can't work out what the photo would be showing other than the atmosphere the memorial creates, as mentioned in this article: "To walk down from the Lincoln Memorial and catch a first, apparitional glimpse of the soldiers, as they stalk from under the tree cover, is quite a thrill. Even from a distance and from the back, the gray figures are compelling." So either stretch fair use as the image illustrates the commentary, or delete (and given the court case over a snow-covered image used on a postage stamp, err on the side of caution and delete). Carcharoth ( talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- I think that the trees and shrubs combined with the wall would make this a great picture even without the soldiers. The soldiers can be considered to be a beautiful obstruction to the rest of the picture. If nobody else agrees, however, I agree it is better to air on the safe side and delete it. I think that if we are going to use a fair use image we might as well make it count and have the full-view. Even so, the full-resolution photo would have to be deleted anyways.--
Jorfer (
talk)
20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- On balance, delete. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:44, 27 July 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:KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- It has been clearly established that these photos are derivative works of a non-free image in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. The licensing here is thus false. Jorfer ( talk) 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete per Commons discussion both images. Or one could be left under the fair use licensing. feydey ( talk) 21:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Copyright for his sculpture prohibits recreating the sculpture (i.e. if I sculpted a replica of it...similar to replica automobiles even for personal use let alone resale) as well as photos redistributed WITH money collected. His own court case shows that by someone making monetary gains off his works. My images are used on a non-profit website and no money is being made off of my images. I can change the license to prohibit the images from being copied from Wikipedia if anyone is concerned about my current license of redistribution allowed. Photography of the sculptures is allowed. However, profiting off of the images of the sculptures is not. I am not. -- 350z33 ( talk) 21:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- So for those challenging the copyright, do you think these websites in the wrong for hosting images of the sculptures?
http://www.nps.gov/kowa/index.htm http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/projects/WashingtonDC/korean.html http://sc94.ameslab.gov/tour/korean_mem.html Now two .gov domains and one .mil (from a quick search) have to remove them as well? That's not how copyright law works for things like this. -- 350z33 ( talk) 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- A similar issue was handled with wiki on this photo (there are lots of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MickeyMouseJapan.JPG
Disney obviously owns the designs, but personal photos of the designs are allowed. Someone can edit my photos with those permissions.
- A similar issue was handled with wiki on this photo (there are lots of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MickeyMouseJapan.JPG
Disney obviously owns the designs, but personal photos of the designs are allowed. Someone can edit my photos with those permissions.
- Have you contacted these three sites and asked if they got permission to use the image or if they bought permission from the author? Also, all three website photos are low enough resolution that fair use could be argued. Mind you, though, that Wikipedia's requirements for fair use photos are higher than other organizations; this includes WP:NFCC#3a. Also, the Commons does not accept fair use images, so they can definitely not be transwikied to the commons (I realize this was not 350z33 suggestion). If you could meet that requirement, you could change the rationale and downscale the image, but the higher resolution version needs to be deleted from the history anyways. Payment is not required for copyright infringement. If it was, the music companies would have not legal recourse against those who illegally distribute and illegally download music for free on file sharing sites. The image is a derivative work. With respect to the second work this is obvious. The inclusion on the "rear" image as I said above could be considered incidental, as it could be argued the intention is to capture the trees and the wall, but that can definitely not be argued with the "KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers".-- Jorfer ( talk) 00:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Music copyrights were violated by copying the files. I did not copy the sculptures so that copyright law is not analogous. Photographs of copyrighted objects are allowed. Photographs of the sculptures is allowed as well. This is similar to Ferrari's copyrights on the design of their cars. No one is allowed to reproduce them (i.e. build a car that looks like theirs) without their consent. Meaning, you cannot make a 1:1 scale copy of a Ferrari let alone a 1:18 scale model. However, photography of their designs is allowed (especially in public places). It's no different than here (I'm not building a sculpture or using my photo for profit). The court case other wiki members have pointed me toward is of a money-generating venture using the image of the sculpture and isn't the same as what we're doing here. It's no different than if the USPS went to Disney World, took a photo of Mickey Mouse, and put that picture on their stamp and made money. Obviously that's not allowed as Disney enforces their trademark rights. Just like what they did to the memorial. In both cases, you are allowed to take photos and put them up for display. Again, I'm not copying their work. Their work isn't a photograph with me taking a photograph of a photograph. The medium is completely different among the other reasons I stated.
Show me the law that pertains to these sculphttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_July_14&action=edit§ion=12tures and how photographs of them violate it (especially photos taken in public places) and then we can deal with it.-- 350z33 ( talk) 00:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- It's up to you to show that this image satisfies "Freedom of Panorama" in the location where the image was taken. This varies from country to country, but ultimately, it is your responsibility to show that this image complies with the law of the country in which it was produced. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Rodhull andemu 01:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- And why exactly is it up to me to prove my image is okay? Why do I have to debate with someone that non-commercial usage is a factor in deciding whether or not it can stay? Now I have to force someone to read the four factors courts used, which include commercial usage? Anyone can read the court case online. Photography of the memorial (for non-commercial use) is allowed.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-5044.pdf --
350z33 (
talk)
01:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The four factors courts use is for fair use. Since fair use can only be determined by a court and since fair use depends on the circumstance it is used on (which means even though an image is used here someone may not be able to take that image and use it elsewhere for free which goes against Wikipedia's mission of providing a free encyclopedia), Wikipedia discourages fair use and only allows it when necessary to make a point in articles. Fair use does not mean that you are the copyright owner of your picture. You do not have a copyright for a picture just because you have a copyright for elements of a picture. If the copyrighted picture includes a derivative of someone's copyrighted artwork, it requires their permission to use. No matter what they own a piece of your picture. Since a picture of the Soldiers in the Memorial (the rest of the Memorial is in the public domain and thus pictures of them are the copyright of the photographer) is a derivative work of the original artwork the statement in the licensing: "I, the copyright holder of this work" is false because you do not own the copyright for those pictures as unfair as it may seem. I disagree with the current state of U.S. copyright law, but the law is the law. Look at Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United_States and then respond.-- Jorfer ( talk) 02:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- And File:MickeyMouseJapan.JPG has now been nominated for deletion to. See WP:WAX on using the "other stuff exists" argument.-- Jorfer ( talk) 05:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Like I said, read the PDF I posted (for some reason it's not up at the moment). I hold the copyright to the photo I posted online. It is mine. The courts said the same for the photographer's photo that was used on the stamp. No one is allowed to use my photo without my permission. Not even the sculptor of the monument. That's the copyright I have for my photo. However, I am not allowed to do certain things with the photo, which include commercial use, since my photo contains copyrighted elements. My suggestion was to put a restriction on the photo to use only on wikipedia and nowhere else. However, I didn't see that option when I uploaded so I told someone to change it to that if possible rather than releasing it to anyone. I'm done debating this. -- 350z33 ( talk) 03:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Again, you do not seem to fully understand that you do not have the rights to license it however you choose. Your work constitutes a derivative work and is thus subject to the original copyright owner. See Commons:Commons:Derivative works. In order to license it for Wikipedia only it would require you to have the copyright to the entire photo, which you don't (you are not uploading your elements of the photo but the entire thing). Second, it would be against Wikipedia's mission to have such an option. The law does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial usage for copyright ownership. The law does differentiate between the two in what constitutes a copyright violation. The photo that is only of the soldiers cannot be used as a fair use photo in Wikipedia as it is currently, however, since it needs to meet certain requirements (see WP:NFCC; which incorporates the 4 factors you mention above). The licensing that has been given for "KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers" is false: "I, the copyright holder of this work...". This means "KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers" can be deleted immediately, since you are not the sole copyright owner.-- Jorfer ( talk) 23:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- There are more images on the talk page:
here.
Carcharoth (
talk)
16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Now they are nominated for deletion as well.-- Jorfer ( talk) 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete. If one is to be kept under fair use, it will need discussion and sourced commentary in the article first. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:43, 27 July 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:Arthur Oscar Freudenberg 1961.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply
- Copyright status doubted; description states "from the collection of Selma Freudenberg" but uploader claims copyright. Dates indicate that copyright subsists, but not necessarily in the uploader. Unless this is clarified, we should lose this image. Rodhull andemu 23:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Not sure why everyone is upset about a pic of a family member on my userpage. I am the copyright holder. If someone else is claiming the copyright and has a stronger claim for priority, then I would be suspicious. If the image is found at a news website, then I would be suspicious. Is this just another weird thing like when TreasuryTag nominated what appeared to be every image I loaded to Wikipedia and WikiCommons. He claimed that since I was in the photo, I couldnt have taken it, and therefore couldn't claim any implied or real copyright. A simple Google image search will show the same pic from my blog, Google Knol, Findagrave, and a half dozen other places. Is this starting all over again just a few weeks after it was settled? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Some questions here: (1) Did you take this photograph? (2) If not, who did, for they or their direct heirs undoubtedly own the copyright since they cannot have died more than 70 years ago? (3) If you are such an heir, you would have to show that you are the sole owner of the copyright as per the photographer's will. That's not so difficult to follow, but they are the rules.
Rodhull
andemu
15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Can you show me the Wikipedia rule, or the paragraph in the DMCA or the Copyright Term Extension Act that demands that I have to have been willed a family photograph of a family member. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The photo itself and its copyright are two different things. Merely having possession of a photograph doesn't necessarily imply that you also own its copyright. It seems that you first published this image in 2007, in which case the guidelines
here apply. It all hinges upon whether the photographer is known, because different periods apply. Menawhile, if any other image experts wish to pitch in, fine. If it turns out the image is free of copyright, it should be on Commons, otherwise have a
fair-use rationale.
Rodhull
andemu
16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- In the case of family heirlooms, all rights are usually implicitly given with the photograph itself if it is the only known copy. Yes, it would be nice to know with more certainty, but I think copyright is not usually a consideration of individuals when estate planning. The exact photographer, however, is needed for it to be licensed under Creative Commons I believe.-- Jorfer ( talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- The photo itself and its copyright are two different things. Merely having possession of a photograph doesn't necessarily imply that you also own its copyright. It seems that you first published this image in 2007, in which case the guidelines
here apply. It all hinges upon whether the photographer is known, because different periods apply. Menawhile, if any other image experts wish to pitch in, fine. If it turns out the image is free of copyright, it should be on Commons, otherwise have a
fair-use rationale.
Rodhull
andemu
16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Can you show me the Wikipedia rule, or the paragraph in the DMCA or the Copyright Term Extension Act that demands that I have to have been willed a family photograph of a family member. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Some questions here: (1) Did you take this photograph? (2) If not, who did, for they or their direct heirs undoubtedly own the copyright since they cannot have died more than 70 years ago? (3) If you are such an heir, you would have to show that you are the sole owner of the copyright as per the photographer's will. That's not so difficult to follow, but they are the rules.
Rodhull
andemu
15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Surely this image is out of scope for Wikipedia? Personal images of oneself as a child I can understand, but photographs of other members of the family? That is not needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- I agree that it seems non-notable. I was just commenting on the licensing as that is the purpose of this page. I think the picture should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST, but I do not believe that this is the proper procedure for doing it, since this is being listed as a possibly unfree file. I looked it up and the original author does not need to be credited for the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, so I remove that objection. If others feel that more proof is needed for this to be considered properly licensed, however, this seems like a faster way to delete it than the process for deleting WP:NOTWEBHOST violations.-- Jorfer ( talk) 20:05, 25 July 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
July 14
File:JohnnyBallBirmingham1998.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:JohnnyBallBirmingham1998.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Licence here is inconsistent with that on Flickr. Uploader/author should make it plain which licence he/she intends to use as release. Rodhull andemu 00:40, 14 July 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:MiamiBeachSeniorHighBuilding2and3.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Appears to be taken at the exact same time on the exact same day from the exact same place as the Google Street View van: [1] Mosmof ( talk) 04:22, 14 July 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:JIIIMEISEN.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:JIIIMEISEN.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader ( User:Amandabilliot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) was indefinitely blocked some time ago due to extended sock puppetry. Part of this sock puppetry was to create fake pages using images which were claimed to be taken by the uploader but included no EXIF data and are more likely to have been copied from a non-free source. There is no evidence that this sock puppeteer took these photos or has permission to issue them as public domain. The uploader has never responded to questions on their talk pages about these images even though around 40 images have been questioned. Fæ ( talk) 11:03, 14 July 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:Lions Badge.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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Lions Badge.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- WP:FU image not in use we also have File:Logo_Lions_Rugby.svg Gnevin ( talk) 13:56, 14 July 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:Springbok Original.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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Springbok Original.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- WP:FU image not in use and better version found here File:South_Africa_national_rugby_union_team.svg Gnevin ( talk) 13:58, 14 July 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:Wales Original.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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Wales Original.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- [WP:FU]] image not in use and better version found here File:Wru_logo.png Gnevin ( talk) 13:59, 14 July 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:Tuskers.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 discussion was: keep, file does not belong in this venue as it is licensed under fair use. Files for deletion is that way. — ξ xplicit 02:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Tuskers.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- WP:FU image not in use Gnevin ( talk) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:29, 27 July 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:Warrenhouse.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Warrenhouse.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Nothing on the source page indicates it's available under a free license. Esrever ( klaT) 15:16, 14 July 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:Frankie sandford LIVE.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Frankie sandford LIVE.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- EXIF shows Mike Marsland as copyright owner while User:SitDownOnIt gives user's name as Natalie. This is also thousands of dollars worth of camera and most likely a professional picture. Uploader has numerous bad image notices on her (his?) talk page). Wknight94 talk 16:54, 14 July 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:Girls Can't Catch.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Girls Can't Catch.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Doubtful that this was taken by the uploader. Appears to be a posed professional photograph. Uploader has claimed other professional-looking photos as own work and has talk page with numerous bad image notices. Wknight94 talk 16:59, 14 July 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:KoreanWarMemorialRear.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:KoreanWarMemorialRear.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unless the inclusion of the sculptures is considered incidental, it has been clearly established that these photos are derivative works of a non-free image in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. The licensing here would thus false. I think that the soldiers inclusion should be considered incidental, but I nominate it for deletion so this can be established by consensus. Jorfer ( talk) 20:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- I thought they might be incidental as well, but incidental to what? I can't work out what the photo would be showing other than the atmosphere the memorial creates, as mentioned in this article: "To walk down from the Lincoln Memorial and catch a first, apparitional glimpse of the soldiers, as they stalk from under the tree cover, is quite a thrill. Even from a distance and from the back, the gray figures are compelling." So either stretch fair use as the image illustrates the commentary, or delete (and given the court case over a snow-covered image used on a postage stamp, err on the side of caution and delete). Carcharoth ( talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- I think that the trees and shrubs combined with the wall would make this a great picture even without the soldiers. The soldiers can be considered to be a beautiful obstruction to the rest of the picture. If nobody else agrees, however, I agree it is better to air on the safe side and delete it. I think that if we are going to use a fair use image we might as well make it count and have the full-view. Even so, the full-resolution photo would have to be deleted anyways.--
Jorfer (
talk)
20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- On balance, delete. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:44, 27 July 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:KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- It has been clearly established that these photos are derivative works of a non-free image in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. The licensing here is thus false. Jorfer ( talk) 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete per Commons discussion both images. Or one could be left under the fair use licensing. feydey ( talk) 21:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Copyright for his sculpture prohibits recreating the sculpture (i.e. if I sculpted a replica of it...similar to replica automobiles even for personal use let alone resale) as well as photos redistributed WITH money collected. His own court case shows that by someone making monetary gains off his works. My images are used on a non-profit website and no money is being made off of my images. I can change the license to prohibit the images from being copied from Wikipedia if anyone is concerned about my current license of redistribution allowed. Photography of the sculptures is allowed. However, profiting off of the images of the sculptures is not. I am not. -- 350z33 ( talk) 21:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- So for those challenging the copyright, do you think these websites in the wrong for hosting images of the sculptures?
http://www.nps.gov/kowa/index.htm http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/projects/WashingtonDC/korean.html http://sc94.ameslab.gov/tour/korean_mem.html Now two .gov domains and one .mil (from a quick search) have to remove them as well? That's not how copyright law works for things like this. -- 350z33 ( talk) 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- A similar issue was handled with wiki on this photo (there are lots of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MickeyMouseJapan.JPG
Disney obviously owns the designs, but personal photos of the designs are allowed. Someone can edit my photos with those permissions.
- A similar issue was handled with wiki on this photo (there are lots of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MickeyMouseJapan.JPG
Disney obviously owns the designs, but personal photos of the designs are allowed. Someone can edit my photos with those permissions.
- Have you contacted these three sites and asked if they got permission to use the image or if they bought permission from the author? Also, all three website photos are low enough resolution that fair use could be argued. Mind you, though, that Wikipedia's requirements for fair use photos are higher than other organizations; this includes WP:NFCC#3a. Also, the Commons does not accept fair use images, so they can definitely not be transwikied to the commons (I realize this was not 350z33 suggestion). If you could meet that requirement, you could change the rationale and downscale the image, but the higher resolution version needs to be deleted from the history anyways. Payment is not required for copyright infringement. If it was, the music companies would have not legal recourse against those who illegally distribute and illegally download music for free on file sharing sites. The image is a derivative work. With respect to the second work this is obvious. The inclusion on the "rear" image as I said above could be considered incidental, as it could be argued the intention is to capture the trees and the wall, but that can definitely not be argued with the "KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers".-- Jorfer ( talk) 00:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Music copyrights were violated by copying the files. I did not copy the sculptures so that copyright law is not analogous. Photographs of copyrighted objects are allowed. Photographs of the sculptures is allowed as well. This is similar to Ferrari's copyrights on the design of their cars. No one is allowed to reproduce them (i.e. build a car that looks like theirs) without their consent. Meaning, you cannot make a 1:1 scale copy of a Ferrari let alone a 1:18 scale model. However, photography of their designs is allowed (especially in public places). It's no different than here (I'm not building a sculpture or using my photo for profit). The court case other wiki members have pointed me toward is of a money-generating venture using the image of the sculpture and isn't the same as what we're doing here. It's no different than if the USPS went to Disney World, took a photo of Mickey Mouse, and put that picture on their stamp and made money. Obviously that's not allowed as Disney enforces their trademark rights. Just like what they did to the memorial. In both cases, you are allowed to take photos and put them up for display. Again, I'm not copying their work. Their work isn't a photograph with me taking a photograph of a photograph. The medium is completely different among the other reasons I stated.
Show me the law that pertains to these sculphttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_July_14&action=edit§ion=12tures and how photographs of them violate it (especially photos taken in public places) and then we can deal with it.-- 350z33 ( talk) 00:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- It's up to you to show that this image satisfies "Freedom of Panorama" in the location where the image was taken. This varies from country to country, but ultimately, it is your responsibility to show that this image complies with the law of the country in which it was produced. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Rodhull andemu 01:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- And why exactly is it up to me to prove my image is okay? Why do I have to debate with someone that non-commercial usage is a factor in deciding whether or not it can stay? Now I have to force someone to read the four factors courts used, which include commercial usage? Anyone can read the court case online. Photography of the memorial (for non-commercial use) is allowed.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-5044.pdf --
350z33 (
talk)
01:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The four factors courts use is for fair use. Since fair use can only be determined by a court and since fair use depends on the circumstance it is used on (which means even though an image is used here someone may not be able to take that image and use it elsewhere for free which goes against Wikipedia's mission of providing a free encyclopedia), Wikipedia discourages fair use and only allows it when necessary to make a point in articles. Fair use does not mean that you are the copyright owner of your picture. You do not have a copyright for a picture just because you have a copyright for elements of a picture. If the copyrighted picture includes a derivative of someone's copyrighted artwork, it requires their permission to use. No matter what they own a piece of your picture. Since a picture of the Soldiers in the Memorial (the rest of the Memorial is in the public domain and thus pictures of them are the copyright of the photographer) is a derivative work of the original artwork the statement in the licensing: "I, the copyright holder of this work" is false because you do not own the copyright for those pictures as unfair as it may seem. I disagree with the current state of U.S. copyright law, but the law is the law. Look at Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United_States and then respond.-- Jorfer ( talk) 02:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- And File:MickeyMouseJapan.JPG has now been nominated for deletion to. See WP:WAX on using the "other stuff exists" argument.-- Jorfer ( talk) 05:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Like I said, read the PDF I posted (for some reason it's not up at the moment). I hold the copyright to the photo I posted online. It is mine. The courts said the same for the photographer's photo that was used on the stamp. No one is allowed to use my photo without my permission. Not even the sculptor of the monument. That's the copyright I have for my photo. However, I am not allowed to do certain things with the photo, which include commercial use, since my photo contains copyrighted elements. My suggestion was to put a restriction on the photo to use only on wikipedia and nowhere else. However, I didn't see that option when I uploaded so I told someone to change it to that if possible rather than releasing it to anyone. I'm done debating this. -- 350z33 ( talk) 03:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Again, you do not seem to fully understand that you do not have the rights to license it however you choose. Your work constitutes a derivative work and is thus subject to the original copyright owner. See Commons:Commons:Derivative works. In order to license it for Wikipedia only it would require you to have the copyright to the entire photo, which you don't (you are not uploading your elements of the photo but the entire thing). Second, it would be against Wikipedia's mission to have such an option. The law does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial usage for copyright ownership. The law does differentiate between the two in what constitutes a copyright violation. The photo that is only of the soldiers cannot be used as a fair use photo in Wikipedia as it is currently, however, since it needs to meet certain requirements (see WP:NFCC; which incorporates the 4 factors you mention above). The licensing that has been given for "KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers" is false: "I, the copyright holder of this work...". This means "KoreanWarMemorialSoldiers" can be deleted immediately, since you are not the sole copyright owner.-- Jorfer ( talk) 23:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- There are more images on the talk page:
here.
Carcharoth (
talk)
16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Now they are nominated for deletion as well.-- Jorfer ( talk) 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete. If one is to be kept under fair use, it will need discussion and sourced commentary in the article first. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:43, 27 July 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:Arthur Oscar Freudenberg 1961.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply
- Copyright status doubted; description states "from the collection of Selma Freudenberg" but uploader claims copyright. Dates indicate that copyright subsists, but not necessarily in the uploader. Unless this is clarified, we should lose this image. Rodhull andemu 23:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- Not sure why everyone is upset about a pic of a family member on my userpage. I am the copyright holder. If someone else is claiming the copyright and has a stronger claim for priority, then I would be suspicious. If the image is found at a news website, then I would be suspicious. Is this just another weird thing like when TreasuryTag nominated what appeared to be every image I loaded to Wikipedia and WikiCommons. He claimed that since I was in the photo, I couldnt have taken it, and therefore couldn't claim any implied or real copyright. A simple Google image search will show the same pic from my blog, Google Knol, Findagrave, and a half dozen other places. Is this starting all over again just a few weeks after it was settled? --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Some questions here: (1) Did you take this photograph? (2) If not, who did, for they or their direct heirs undoubtedly own the copyright since they cannot have died more than 70 years ago? (3) If you are such an heir, you would have to show that you are the sole owner of the copyright as per the photographer's will. That's not so difficult to follow, but they are the rules.
Rodhull
andemu
15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Can you show me the Wikipedia rule, or the paragraph in the DMCA or the Copyright Term Extension Act that demands that I have to have been willed a family photograph of a family member. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The photo itself and its copyright are two different things. Merely having possession of a photograph doesn't necessarily imply that you also own its copyright. It seems that you first published this image in 2007, in which case the guidelines
here apply. It all hinges upon whether the photographer is known, because different periods apply. Menawhile, if any other image experts wish to pitch in, fine. If it turns out the image is free of copyright, it should be on Commons, otherwise have a
fair-use rationale.
Rodhull
andemu
16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- In the case of family heirlooms, all rights are usually implicitly given with the photograph itself if it is the only known copy. Yes, it would be nice to know with more certainty, but I think copyright is not usually a consideration of individuals when estate planning. The exact photographer, however, is needed for it to be licensed under Creative Commons I believe.-- Jorfer ( talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- The photo itself and its copyright are two different things. Merely having possession of a photograph doesn't necessarily imply that you also own its copyright. It seems that you first published this image in 2007, in which case the guidelines
here apply. It all hinges upon whether the photographer is known, because different periods apply. Menawhile, if any other image experts wish to pitch in, fine. If it turns out the image is free of copyright, it should be on Commons, otherwise have a
fair-use rationale.
Rodhull
andemu
16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Can you show me the Wikipedia rule, or the paragraph in the DMCA or the Copyright Term Extension Act that demands that I have to have been willed a family photograph of a family member. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Some questions here: (1) Did you take this photograph? (2) If not, who did, for they or their direct heirs undoubtedly own the copyright since they cannot have died more than 70 years ago? (3) If you are such an heir, you would have to show that you are the sole owner of the copyright as per the photographer's will. That's not so difficult to follow, but they are the rules.
Rodhull
andemu
15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Surely this image is out of scope for Wikipedia? Personal images of oneself as a child I can understand, but photographs of other members of the family? That is not needed. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply
- I agree that it seems non-notable. I was just commenting on the licensing as that is the purpose of this page. I think the picture should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST, but I do not believe that this is the proper procedure for doing it, since this is being listed as a possibly unfree file. I looked it up and the original author does not need to be credited for the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, so I remove that objection. If others feel that more proof is needed for this to be considered properly licensed, however, this seems like a faster way to delete it than the process for deleting WP:NOTWEBHOST violations.-- Jorfer ( talk) 20:05, 25 July 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.