The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I7 by
East718 (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Web source provides no true image origin or terms for usage. No permissions for use granted. 156.34.142.110 ( talk) 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
This may be me being paranoid, but this is a professional-quality photo taken by a user who started an account, uploaded this, then did nothing else. It also has IMDB in the filename and looks like a publicity shot. (But it's high-enough-res it's not like most things pulled from the internet.) The file name has the name of a male soap opera actor, so I don't know who this person is to try googling and looking for similar images. Can anyone ID the subject of the photo? Mangostar ( talk) 00:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Does not look like a user-authored image - it appears to be a scan of an old photo/book B ( talk) 01:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Photo comes from a UC Berkeley website and the copyright owner is not attributed on the source website. There is no reason to believe it is a US federal government photo. B ( talk) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Obviously not a user-authored image B ( talk) 02:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Image appears on the city's website in the bottom right corner - http://www.cityofsomerset.com/ -- B ( talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Official state portrait of Kentucky's Lt Governor - no reason to believe the CC license applies B ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Unlikely a user-authored image. From the filename, this came off of somebody's myspace page. B ( talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Obviously scanned from a newspaper, description says it is from the early 1950s, so probably not PD. It's tagged as GFDL-self, which is definitely false. B ( talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
obviously non-free - an image from a comic book B ( talk) 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I2 by
B (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
First claimed PD-self then claimed copyrighted by uploader. PD-ineligible? Jusjih ( talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
From http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/139.aspx, the GFDL-self claim is questionable. Jusjih ( talk) 03:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I4 by
MECU (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Uploader claimed self licensing. IP blanked it. Need comments to determine if the self licensing is credible. Jusjih ( talk) 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No reason to believe it is PD B ( talk) 05:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No reason to believe the image is PD. There is a false claim on the description page that the image is PD because the lighting isn't creative, but this is a photo of a 3D object, which is inherently creative. B ( talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Calliopejen1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B ( talk) 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Calliopejen1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B ( talk) 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Calliopejen1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B ( talk) 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I9 by
Shell Kinney (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B ( talk) 05:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Calliopejen1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B ( talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Calliopejen1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
No reason to believe the image is PD. A photo of a 3D object is inherently creative and thus subject to copyright. B ( talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I3 by
MECU (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Terms of use given on description page forbid commercial reuse - "Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes ..." B ( talk) 05:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Source website terms of service forbid commercial use and derivative works. B ( talk) 05:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Source website terms of service forbid commercial reuse and derivative works B ( talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
This image rotates between logos of various sports teams. Those logos are copyrighted and/or trademarked, meaning this image cannot be considered to be free. B ( talk) 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Rettetast (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Image sourced to band's myspace page - no reason to believe it is free B ( talk) 06:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
B (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Permission claimed, but no OTRS ticket. Someone check the OTRS queues, if nothing found, delete; if found and ok, add the ticket number. Lupo 09:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm going to say this one more time. I got permission from Bob Gruen to use the Lennon NYC T-shirt photo on November 12th. I forwarded his consent to en-permissions@wiki, and it was fine until someone decided to bring it into Wikicommons. it was only intended for use on the John Lennon page. I will forward Gruen's consent to AN EMAIL ADDRESS YOU PROVIDE, not a wiki code. I also do not want it part of Wikicommons, thank you very much. Hotcop2 ( talk) 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Calliopejen1 (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Uploader claims this is public domain in India because the image was published at least 60 years ago. This Dharmendra was born in 1935. Does he look like he's 12 in this image to you? Highly, highly doubtful. -- Durin ( talk) 14:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I3 by
MECU (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
"Used by permission exclusive to Wiki" — now what does that mean? Where's the permission? OTRS ticket? We don't allow "wikipedia-only" releases. Lupo 16:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
We? The image is released for public consumption. These images were cleared and discussed with admin. Seems that you are following Hotcop2 around. Mister ricochet ( talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
How many retards does it take to screw in a lightbulb? I spend more time answering quesions about these photos, including one I took and posted. All these photos have been cleared. Check with Administrator Gustafson. it appears that the left Wiki doesn't know what the right one's doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The images can be used freely. I only stated I didn't want them in "Commons" because, after someone decided to bring them into "Commons" all this nonsense started up. The three photos I uploaded can be used freely WITH ATTRIBUTION. if I tagged them wrong, go ahead and tag them right. We have full permission to use the Winfield, Willis and Lennon photos. i added the "Wikipedia" only, if that was wrong, take it off. no big deal. as far as "personal attack," i was merely asking a philosophical question. i've re-re-sent the permissions to permissions-en. Hotcop2 ( talk) 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I9 by
Shell Kinney (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
I suspect this image is copyvio at the Filckr source...this Flickr user licenses everything under CC attribution, even obviously copyrighted material like magazine scans and screencaps. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I9 by
Skier Dude (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Same as above. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I9 by
Shell Kinney (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Same as above. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I9 by
Shell Kinney (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Same as above. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
MECU (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The flickr image from which this is derived is tagged as "sampled from SF Chronicle" and has a caption "Chronicle / Lance Iversen" B ( talk) 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
MECU (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
looks like a screenshot. Garion96 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I9 by
MECU (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
copyright tag on image. Unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. Rettetast ( talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I9 by
MECU (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
see above Rettetast ( talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
I9 by
MECU (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
see above Rettetast ( talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply