February 8
- .
- Uploader has stated that they did not author the image here. Blurpeace 01:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Uploader has stated that they did not author the image here. Blurpeace 01:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Screenshot of software, unlikely that the uploader holds the right to it. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he does. The software is free and screenshots can be freely distributed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chroniker (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- [1] license from the site, this is covered under GNU. Clicking through to the article would have told you the software is licensed as such.--Crossmr (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Logo for a software company, unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he does. I have created the logo for the software.
- Löschen - as a work for hire, even if it was created by the above commenter, he/she probably does not hold the rights (depending on the specific location etc) (ESkog)(Talk) 21:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- They don't need to, its released under GNU [2].--Crossmr (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- File is of professional quality, looks to be official. Unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Image is an album cover, unlikely that the uploader holds the rights to it. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, but it is an in use image being used to illustrate the subject. Simply change it to a fair use one.--Crossmr (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Apparently a promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Taken from here [3], left most second row.--Crossmr (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Apparently a promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Screenshot of a likely copyrighted website. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- This would be covered under german copyright law during world war 2. This comes from an article talking about porcelain made up until 1945, which puts it at 65 years old. I'm not sure how that applies to current copyright law. The article on German_copyright_law indicates that prior to 1965 copyright was for life + 8 years, it also states that logos however were not automatically covered under this law. Since the threshold for gaining copyright on these is high, I think the burden would need to be on you to show this ever actually achieved copyright protection, since it is more likely they didn't than did.--Crossmr (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Studio style photo of some kind. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- The author has clarified their ownership and the image has been moved to commons.--Crossmr (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Professional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- An individual who also passed away. Image appears to come from here [4], at worst this simply needs a change to a fair use license since it is impossible to procure a new photo of this individual.--Crossmr (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Modern building. No freedom of panorama in Romania. Blurpeace 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- That clearly states that images can be published so long as it is not for commercial purposes. Is it being used for commercial purposes on wikipedia?--Crossmr (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Source is an uncited photobucket type site, no author listed, no reliable source information or reliable proof that the uploader is the auther and has permission to upload, conflicting sourcing information (listed as both PD and CC-BY-SA lisenced). I can't find this specific image in Google Images, but without any further info, the burden is on the uploader to establish that this is a free-to-use image. Jayron32 05:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is a facebook url.--Crossmr (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Image is an album cover, unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The band owns the rights and they have released the image to be used. I can remove it though if that will solve the problem? LindsayG0430 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to where they released it?--Crossmr (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Delete; licence and author claimed by uploader are disputed because the source clearly gives credit to Linda Lundt as the photographer, which is neither the uploader or author as claimed and no permission has been given by the photographer. ww2censor (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it was originally incorrectly entered (under the wrong category?) by me personally. The photo has been (unchallenged) on the Wiki Deerhound page since July 2008. It was cropped, distorting the proportions and changing the colour by a third party, September 2009. I reposted it shortly after that. The original photo of Fernhill's Kendra has been in our possession since the mid 1990's, and has been on our website since 2001. It has also been in at least one book, and a number of magazines in that period. We (at Fernhill) always credit material to the original author - which we have done on our website, to which the Wiki file refers. We have tried to contact the photographer years ago without any luck, as we will be using this photo in our own book on the Deerhound. I would strongly suggest that this photograph is in the public domain and has been properly credited.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Source does not verify that this image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. — ξxplicit 06:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- page clearly indicates the blogger removed the watermark. Obviously copyright.--Crossmr (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Dead source, no evidence that this image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. — ξxplicit 06:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Copyrighted cover, no indication that the uploader has the right to license it under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. — ξxplicit 06:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- the sign is not covered by US freedom of panorama IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion isn't for clean-up. If the license needs to be fixed that can be addressed, but the photo is clearly used for identification of the school. No attempt made on the part of the nominator to check copyrights, or address licensing of an in use image.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Another low-resolution athlete image with no metadata, from a serial copyvio uploader. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- low-res athlete image with no metadata from serial copyright violator (ESkog)(Talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- low-res athlete image with no metadata from serial copyright violator (ESkog)(Talk) 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- low-res athlete image with no metadata from serial copyright violator (ESkog)(Talk) 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- low-res athlete image with no metadata from serial copyright violator (ESkog)(Talk) 21:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- low-res athlete image with no metadata from serial copyright violator (ESkog)(Talk) 21:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- low-res athlete image with no metadata from serial copyright violator (ESkog)(Talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- low-res athlete image with no metadata from serial copyright violator (ESkog)(Talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- low-res athlete image with no metadata from serial copyright violator (ESkog)(Talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- What book does this come from and will the scan be old enough for public domain status? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- There is no source for the image and no indication when it was painted. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- May or may not be self made, but even if it is, will be a derivative work and therefore non-free. Black Kite 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Wikipedia front page is not PD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Someone tagged the image as one for deletion and explained on my talk page that it is recommended that the Wikipedia front page be used instead. (see my talk page). You are saying the complete opposite of that. Someone doesn't know what they're talking about, but I don't know who it is. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- .
- Product Design - so Non-free - No query about the photo itself. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. How else are you supposed to identify the product? This is a completely inane tagging. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
