Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9

File:MichiganHistoricalSign.jpg

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.

Note: Closed by nominator. Non-administrative closure.

Photograph of a sign that is likely under copyright. See also this and File:StateHistoricalSign.jpg. Note: Does not appear to be speedy-eligible as it includes a release for the photographer's copyright. This appears to be a case of the uploader being unaware that the sign itself is under copyright. Also note that the uploader is a sporadic editor and may not return to Wikipedia before this discussion closes. If you close this before he comes back please put a polite, "we love your uploads but we can't take this one except as fair use" comment on his talk page explaining things. The current use probably does not qualify as fair-use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Resolved by replacing the image with a 300x200 image in which the copyrighted text is illegible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:40, 11 January 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.

File:Walter kamba.jpg

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 as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the fair use rationale and have now uploaded a different photo that I believe fits (Non-free promotional). Babakathy (talk) 13:21, 9 January 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.

File:Leylapinar.jpg

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 as I9 by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader - TRWebmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims that the photo is self-made, listing Timur as the photographer. However, this appears to be by a professional photographer named Yavuz Meyveci and is in the portfolio on his official web site at http://hafizeyildiz.com/portreler.asp, specifically http://hafizeyildiz.com/buyuk/foto/portreler/Leyla%20pinar%201.jpg Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The uploader has now changed the name of the photographer to Yavuz Meyveci, but is still claiming it to be "self made", despite the fact that ~~this is apparently~~ he has admitted this is untrue and that he does not personally own the copyright to it. See [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image speedily deleted. Prior publication at external site with explicit copyright notice; contributor verifies that he is not the photographer here. No credible claim that the owner has released the image under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 10 January 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.

File:DcVD.png

No source was given for this logo, and it seems like it might have been made using a conglomeration of other logos. I propose deleting it for questionable origins unless a source is found. _ZXCVBNM 20:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheFarm1.jpg

no evidence of GFDL on source site. Garion96 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]