The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Not a coat of arms, seal, etc, or means of payment. 72.88.53.147 ( talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Photo of mural from 2nd half of 20th century by artist Buck Winn, who died in 1979. Derivative; no evidence offered that original is PD nor free licensed. Infrogmation ( talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
I'd tagged this based on the infromation supplied with it, but the uploader informs me the source site may have been using it as 'fair-use' from a third party. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
I've just deleted a dozen blatant copyright violations by the uploader of this image. The user usually just yoinked the first or 2nd image seen in a google search, with false claim of self creation and false license. I didn't find the source of this one, but doubt the "I created this image entirely by myself" claim of this one has any more truth than the pile stadium images by the uploader that have been shown to be copyright violations. Infrogmation ( talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Found this in the "now commons" backlog. Uploader does state that the image is released under CC-BY-SA, but then goes on to add "(...)Please Ask Author if you wish to publish it" (emphasis original). To me that seems like an attempt to "override" the parts of the CC-BY-SA license that allow anyone to publish it without any furhter permission, and so it should probably be considetred non-free unless the uploader can clearify if it was intended to just be a "would be nice if you notified me when you use it" kind of thing rater than intended as a "hard" condition for re-use.
Sherool
(talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Uploader has a whole pile of files that they uploaded as pd-self which are obviously not.
Terrillja
talk 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Uploader has a whole pile of files they uploaded as pd-self which are obviously not. Mixtape cover pulled from blog which pulled it from who knows where.
Terrillja
talk 17:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The image comes from an uploader whose contributions are believed to be mostly, if not entirely copyvios, and this particular image lacks essential information that would provide reasonable evidence of free license. Mosmof ( talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply