The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

film poster; unlikely its been released as CC Skier Dude ( talk) 01:31, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 04:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

appears to be screenshot from video game, thus uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 02:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The screenshot is indeed from a computer game, but I'm one of the developers and thus copyright holders. I'm not sure, how I can prove it to you, so if it's easier, let's just change the type of licence to the one, that suits the content best. The LxR ( talk) 10:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

This can either be done through WP:OTRS from an e-mail address connected with the company producing/owning the game - or - it can be changed to {{Non-free software screenshot|Screenshots of video games}} with the source and a "fair use" added. Skier Dude ( talk) 00:58, 2 November 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

appears to be screenshot from video game, thus uploader would not be (c) holder - also see watermark Skier Dude ( talk) 02:18, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

appears to be screenshot from video game, thus uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 02:19, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

appears to be screenshot from video game, thus uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 02:19, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

video game cover, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 02:20, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

appears to be screenshot from video game, thus uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 02:20, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

appears to be screenshot from video game, thus uploader would not be (c) holder - also see watermark Skier Dude ( talk) 02:21, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

orphaned; obvious tv screenshot licensed as PD-self Skier Dude ( talk) 02:36, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

law-enforcement badge/logo, if legit uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude ( talk) 04:04, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 08:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

given odd cropping and pixelation of image, appears to be scan from unprovided source Skier Dude ( talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Possibly copyright; no fair-use, source, or author Zoo Fari 06:37, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 deleted  Skier Dude   ►  01:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply
User NewOrleans4Life ( talk · contribs · logs) has uploaded a large number of photos of rappers and licensed them as GFDL/CC. But most appear to be promotional photographs. I've done some searching and all of these images are available from external sources, all explicitly dated prior to their Semtember/October upload on Wikipedia, not that these sources are necessarily the original copyright holders either, but unless NewOrleans4Life has some special connections in the industry, all of these images appear to be blatant copyright infringements.

1. File:Guccimane.jpg cropped from [1]
2. File:Yo gotti.jpg from [2] or [3]
3. File:Oj-da-juiceman.jpg from [4] (still has the website brand on it)
4. File:OJ+Da+Juiceman+AYE.jpg from [5]
5. File:Yung la.jpg from [6]
6. File:Young-dro-yung-la-take-off-8.jpg from [7]
7. File:Young dro.jpg from [8]
8. File:Royce da 5 9 large.jpg from [9]
9. File:Crooked i.jpg from [10]
10. File:Joe budden.jpg from [11]
11. File:Joell ortiz1jpg.jpg from [12]
12. File:Ace+Hood+acehood4.jpg from [13]
13. File:Ralph.jpg from [14]
14. File:Mack 10 5194513.jpg from [15]
15. File:GlassesMalone.jpg from [16]
16. File:Bishop lamont friends.jpg from [17]
17. File:JayRock.jpg from [18]
18. File:Dorrough2.jpg from [19]
19. File:Juve the great.jpg from [20]

And these are album covers, again claimed GFDL/CC.

1. File:Juvenile-cocky-confident.jpg
2. File:Juve-solja rags.jpg
3. File:Yo Gotti - Self-Explanatory.jpg
4. File:Yo Gotti Life.jpg
5. File:From Da Dope Game 2 Da Rap Game.jpg
6. File:2Hood2beHollywood.jpg (re-upload), then replaced by File:Bg-album-cover-nov-10.jpg (one or other needs to be deleted)

• Anakin ^(talk) 09:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I've changed the license on the seven album covers (including the dupe) to {{ non-free album cover}} and added standard {{ album cover fur}} rationales. • Anakin ^(talk) 09:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete them all except album covers - As proven, all of those promotional photos are obvious copyright violations. Karppinen ( talk) 12:16, 1 November 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 ⚡ 04:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Status of this image is a bit confused, the uploader both added an incomplete non-free use rationale and a {{ pd-us}} license tag. The image was then tagged for deletion for not having a complete non-free use rationale, and the uploader added one. The rationale was just to show that this player was once part of the team though, so if I was sure it was non-free I would have tagged it for speedy deletion as a disputed rationale myself (replacable by text & not significant in the context of the article), however since it was technically claimed to be PD I decided to list it here instead. The PD claim is not obviously correct, the image is apparently from 1924, so it just miss the pre-1923 "loophole". There is also no verifiable source to show that it's actually a publicity photo rater than for example taken for a newspaper. I guess if it is rely a publicity photo there is a good chance it was released on flyers or posters without a copyright notice, which could make it PD anyway, but we'd need to actually provide some evidence that that is the case. Sherool (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. Fair use rationale provided. — ξ ^xplicit 06:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The license has recently been changed from non-free to BSD. However, I believe that the BSD license only applies to the Chromium executable (open source) and the source code for Google Chrome. The actual Google Chrome executable is not included. Can we change the licensing back to non-free? I just wanted to make sure that there was a consensus before doing anything. Michaelkourlas ( talk) 12:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

This would appear to have been an error on the part of User:ViperSnake151 - you are right that only Chromium or the Chrome source code is BSD-licensed. Unless the uploader compiled their copy of Chrome from source, then this is almost certainly a non-free screenshot, and can only be used under fair-use. I've corrected the details, and also added a comment in the wikitext to hopefully avoid future similar misunderstandings. AJ Cham 12:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Per that precedent we can only use Firefox screenshots under fair use since the open source licensing does not apply to binaries! ViperSnake151  Talk  23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Not at all. This is specific to Google Chrome, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Firefox. Google are perfectly entitled to release their binary under a proprietary license, as the BSD license is not copyleft. As I have said. if the uploader compiled Chrome from source themselves, rather than using Google's packaged binary, they would be able to release the screenshot under a free license, but we have no indication that the uploader did do this. AJ Cham 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply

There is another issue to be considered though. Since one could compile Chrome from source and take a screenshot, this image could be considered replaceable with a free version, and thus unsuitable for fair-use. If I remember correctly, there are minor differences between Google's packaged version and the source code they release, so such a free image may not be an accurate portrayal of the official app. However, I do not know if any of the differences would affect how the app looks. I know that Chromium has a similar look, but uses a different shade of blue, and does not feature the Google logo. Maybe a self-compiled Chrome would be the same? AJ Cham 00:15, 1 November 2009 (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 ⚡ 04:44, 6 November 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.

Kept. Would be nice if websites observed the GFDL/CC license requirements when reusing free content, but I don't suppose it will happen soon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I have looked into the images uploaded by Numaiu ( talk · contribs) because of the low resolution and because there are no metadata on the images. I found this image used in this article in austriantimes.at. The article is from a later date than the upload but the resolution is higher. I suspect that this users uploads re copyvios, but need help checking. Rettetast ( talk) 15:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm unconvinced of bad faith. The image at that site [21] is not higher resolution, just cropped and resized. The one here on Wikipedia [22] actually has more detail if you zoom in. I checked several of his other footballer images and found no prior web usage on those either (though some very limited subsequent usage). I suspect he uploaded small images simply to protect against theft, as the Austrian Times seems to have done. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I only upload photos taken by me. Anakin is right. I uploaded small images to protect against theft. Look at the date when I uploaded the photo on Wikipedia and look at the date of the article in wich they use my photo. Numaiu ( talk) 09:21, 26 October 2009 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Copyrighted logo Rettetast ( talk) 15:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Note: This image was used on a handful (maybe 20?) pages, all as a result of four ( [1], [2], [3], [4]) recently created WikiProject Java templates. Since there seems little doubt that this image is copyrighted and superfluous to Image:Java logo.svg, and the non-free content criteria would not apply to those templates, I replaced them with Image:Wave.svg (and notified the templates' creator). This file is now unused, and can be deleted at any time. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:53, 25 October 2009 (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.