This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Herbythyme: Image page without media: content was: '{{speedy|empty page}} {{delete|reason={{tl|nopenis}}}}' (and the only contributor was 'Nard the Bard')
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Current version is unsourced and likely copyvio. The original image under this name is fine - using non-speedy DR to make sure original is not deleted. dave pape (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Flag-of-Amherst-NS.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This photo is from this user's own flickr site. All previous photos uploaded by them have been deleted (mostly due to copyvio). --Ebyabe (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photo is taken from my own private archive ("soukromý archiv") which is made for my other server Westieinfo.com. I am an author and also owner. (13:12, 14 September 2008 Westik.cz)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
KeepCommons is not censored; this picture seems to have been taken by the uploader (see the Flickr source page). Off course it is pornography (for what else reason would you upload such pictures on Flickr?), but it does have an educational purpose. The only two reasons why this file shouldn't be kept, to me, would be the following:
There are several other illustrations already on the article you cite, all of them show a woman on top a man, with different rotations between the man and the woman. I understand that it is the only camera made picture. For anatomical articles, I understand the value of a picture vs. a cartoon. This article is about a sexual position and a picture is superfluous. I don't really understand what is the added value of this pic. Moeztalk15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm wrong (my reply is going to be only rhetorics), but the added value is likely the same as within an article about atomic bomb. Although schematics or other kinds of illustrations can describe well an article, a photograph isn't that superfluous; try to think as some people in an undeveloped country: if they browse a local version of Wikipedia, see the article and schematics, wouldn't they be willing to see how this typical mushroom shape does look, according to you? Anyway, if you don't want to see this picture on the article, maybe you should discuss it on the talk page; but I think it should stay on Commons at least, either because it's the only freely-licensed picture we have about this topic from now, and because it does have an educational value. According to me. Diti (talk to the penguin) 21:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a pretty crass image, and it doesn't really add all that much to en:Woman on top (sex position). That article is pretty overillustrated anyway, so I don't see that this image is needed. In addition:
There may be USC 2257 concerns with the image, as Commons is arguably a "secondary producer" involved in "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" this explicit material. My bush lawyer view is that we should be keeping such records or at the very least ensuring that the source of the image (Flickr?) has.
COM:PEOPLE states that "Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place" are "normally not OK"
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Reasons for deletion request -Holger Please delete this photp (taken by me), it is not needed any more, and I also found it outside wikipedia without permission. (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photo is taken from my own private archive ("soukromý archiv") which is made for my other server Westieinfo.com. I am an author and also owner. transferd from talk page Sterkebaktalk12:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Legally non-free pictures shouldn't be used to illustrate free software. The following images are {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}, and should be replaced with ones showing non-Wikipedia websites that are freely licensed so that they do not hinder free use. Also, do we REALLY have to demonstrate everything with Wikimedia logos? We've got a WHOLE COLLECTION OF IMAGES you can use here to demonstrate stuff. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list will keep growing though as I purge through Category:Copyright by Wikimedia. It's pretty unfortunate that I have to do this, but I don't think nominative non-free images of Wikipedia should be used to illustrate things that aren't specifically Wikipedia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Replacements would be useful, though, and they must not be any more Windows than the deleted ones. --AVRS (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidental uses of Windows do not violate copyright. Otherwise everyone who ever programmed for Windows would violate copyright by creating derivative works. -Nard the Bard22:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replacements are especially wanted for screenshots of old software which doesn't run on modern operating systems. --AVRS (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and should be replaced with ones showing non-Wikipedia websites that are freely licensed - there are no such websites. Wikipedia is the only freely licensed website on the Internet. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've asked this before. I'm glad someone considered this a real issue. It's dangerous for the visitors to offer free images and a bit free images in the same place. Not only the logo is not free but it's a pain to comply to GFLD just because the screenshot shows some text. FedericoMP (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with causing that sort of pain? We don't delete images because complying with their licensing requirements is difficult so long as those requirements are permitted by COM:L. That reasoning would require that we delete all {{GFDL}} (etc) images because "it is a pain to comply with the GFDL" — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The logos are incidental to the screenshot. It is irrelevant whether the logos are copyrighted or not. If someone modifies the image to crop to the logo itself, it's no longer a derivative of this image but a reuse of the logo, and so reuse of this image is irrelevant. If someone modifies the logo within the image, it's a trademark issue, and does not affect the freeness of this image. Avoid copyright paranoia. Bastiquedemandez18:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's quite a difference between an image of a logo (or any other artwork), either large or small, and actually using a trademarked logo for own purposes. Moreover, there's a difference between the actual full scale artwork, and just an incidental appearance. See also User:Bastique. --LimoWreck (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of a trademarked logo in an image does not make the image any less free. For example, look at Time square by Monobi.jpg, which contains numerous trademarked logos. Is that image encumbered by their presence? I think not, but you may also look here for a detailed discussion, with both sides of the argument well-represented.
You are confusing trademark with copyright here. Its COM:DM in those cases, incidental. For most of these cases, its purposely using a Wikipedia web page, and thus, is non-free, no matter what excuses you make. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a description of the licensing to the image page. You may want to make a screenshot without the non-free logo and extensions. There are also some icons which I do not recognize. --AVRS (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probarly the mediaplayer and the weatherbug? When I make a new screenshot, which parts shouldn't be shown, only the mozillaFirefox logo or also other parts? By the way thanx for the licensing! Matthias92 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better to avoid all the non-free parts. The media player buttons may be ineligible for copyright (not sure about them together, though), but WeatherBug hardly is. Not sure about the Mozilla M on the right; the Google search engine can be changed to Creative Commons, whose icon is more trivial (though trademarked) and at worst is under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Get rid of the dictionary icon / bookmark in the shot; and having Hotmail there is just a shame ;-). --AVRS (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, I'll see what I can do. I think I'm gonna make a new shot, or I'll play a bit with Paint, that will do! Hey, about the Hotmail, I'm a dutch boy and 16 years old, so I just have to (stereotype) :)
I see, but if I'd take away the Firefox logo, than wat's left, than what's the difference between Internet Explorer or Safari and M Firefox? Matthias92 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean you shouldn't remove the Google logo; it's just that you have erased a part of the arrow with it in version 2. But you should upload the new versions with the same sense over the old ones; they will still be available through the list below, and the non-free ones can be deleted as well without the last one having a useless number at the end.
The best difference is that you can legally edit the screenshot and upload it to Commons. Non-free extensions make it hard to capture the difference in a free screenshot, but it is possible to avoid them.
Okay, but is there no possibility to rename the images? However, shall I upload another one, the same like number 3 but without the google logo/trademark? (but with an unbroken arrow:-) I'll give it another name without numbers so we can nominate the others for {{Speedydelete}}. We don't need the older versions, do we? Kind regards, Matthias92 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Resetting identation to 1)
It is (almost) impossible to rename an image, but it is possible to delete an image no matter if it has its own name, or if it is only a “version” sharing a name with others. The difference is that the description lives its own life (except when all of the images are deleted), so when someone reverts or uploads a new version of the image, the description stays unchanged (and vice-versa). The upside of that is that history for all the versions is in one place. Deleting an unused image no one really needs is easy and safe – it can be restored, if you know or can find the file name. Creating too many useless names or versions is not very good, since they are not really deleted. --AVRS (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All kept. Please direct any questions to my talk page. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:57, 21 September 2008 (GMT)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Kept. Es können mehrer Bilder von einer Sache auf Commons existieren, nur weil es ein besseres Foto gibt, muss dieses nicht gelöscht werden. / There can be more than one image of one thing, the existence of a better photo of this object does not mean, that this one must be deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Kept. An image released under a free licence can be used by anyone as long as they comply with the terms of the licence. If someone hasn't then it is an issue for the photographer to take up with that individual/organisation. Adambro (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is no reason to delete this by having both we are better off. Zginder (talk)
I've been contacted by the uploader and there are other issues with this image as they are personally identified in the non-cropped version. The alternative, cropped revision, here is more than adequate and having the uncropped one here is causing privacy issues for the uploader, as they have had previous issues with harassment on WP and edited controversial subjects. I'm deleting it now, in deference to their safety and privacy. It's orphaned and we still have the cropped version which contains the notable subject - Alison❤16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning (here in Italia it is morning).
I have added an Online Poker table image
as I needed it within the entry it:Poker online .
The image comes from a freely distributed software,
and similar images are widely present in hundreds of Internet pages.
I edited the pic in order to remove specific Poker Room references.
No i don't think edditing will be enough. I now the poker software en i know it is not open source. So the rights of the image's belongs to the people that created the game. So they must give permission to use the image. See also Commons:OTRS. cheers, Sterkebaktalk09:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Open Source is good for commons so the image is oké. Can you change the source in a direct link to the downloadpage so all is oké? Good work! Sterkebaktalk18:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In use to illustrate article on en:Wikipedia, hence inherently within scope. See en:Lame Strips. However that brings up the question of licensing. Uploader name does not match name of strip author on article. Derivative stick figures? -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Recreation, but this time with a different licence (PD-AR). The source of this image is maybe wrong, it was taken in 1977 according to this website, the author is Associated Press. There is no proof, that this image was token in Argentina, and even if, Associated Press does not publish it in Argentina first. Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
States that email to OTRS has been sent, but has not been verified. I am think that perhaps permission has not been granted for use of this photo. russavia (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor above added the unnecessary OTRS request (I had already emailed the permission email and received confirmation from wikimedia, ticket #2008091410014401). --Asterion (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Clearly scan from book, magazine, or similar print source. Delete unless source of original illustration is listed and shown to be either public domain or otherwise free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
And it's the same font used for Yoshi's Story. Anybody can download it here. Actually all fonts based in video game logos and derived becomes free available in public domain someday as you can see in that site and in these too [2], [3], [4].Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
After emailing back-and-forth, I got the following from someone at IcanHasCheezburger.com:
If you create a lol on our site, it is part of I Can Has Cheezburger then. You are welcome to put it on other sites as long as the watermark is there but no need to put Creative Commons on there. People know that they can share the picture as long as if the watermark stays in the pic. Hope that explains it.
And after a bit more, I got t he comment to look at their terms of use. In particular:
6 C.For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to Pet Holdings, you hereby grant Pet Holdings a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Websites (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Websites, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Websites and under these Terms of Service.
I don't understand copyright issues very well, so I don't know how to parse all that. Is there a way for me to release the image as CC-by-SA? -- SatyrTN (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the actual original picture yours? If so then you can assign any license you want to the image, on top of the one you graned icanhascheezburger. If the original photo belonged to them, you'll need a license from them, since their terms of service for downloading images is definitely unfree. -Nard the Bard19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original photo is of unknown origin - I've seen it on their site, three different blogs, and two non-US sites, but I haven't seen copyright info anywhere. -- SatyrTN (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep First of all, trademarks are not necessarily copyrighted, which is the case here. This design is over 70 years old and it was created by a Soviet government body. For these reasons, it is in the PD. Óðinn (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it was created by a Soviet government body, a joint stock company owns ALL rights to the Aeroflot name and logos, that company being JSC Aeroflot Russian Airlines. It is trademarked in the US as this link. Serial number: 75340168. And also forms part of their full logo protected under the Madrid Convention this link. Having some trouble with fips.ru at the moment, but it is most certainly trademarked there as well. --russavia (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is from the 30's right? And nobody knows who drew it right? THAT MAKES IT PD. Also, please do not remove the license from this image without consensus again. -Nard the Bard22:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not when it is the subject of worldwide trademarks it does not. So again, please, state the Russian law which says that a subject of a valid trademark is in the public domain. And I take extreme issue with you caling my revision vandalism. --russavia (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing copyright law and trademark law. Commons is not really concerned with the latter. As for this image being in the PD, the first criterion of the template that you insist on removing clearly applies. BTW, I'd stop messing with the license tags if I were you. It's hard to call it anything but vandalism, no matter how extreme an issue you make out of it. Óðinn (talk)
Then I suggest you go to Russia and try and use this logo commercially and see what happens to you. Hope you got the money, coz Aeroflot is protecting their trademarks, and to claim it is in the public domain is false. The same as what would happen if you went to the US and tried to use the Coca Cola swirls, or any other logo which has been in use for decades. You have not demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that this is in PD in Russia, and hence I will continue to remove it. --russavia (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll let the Aeroflot lawyers deal with you. Fine, go ahead, keep putting the template back. I've already sent an email to one of the legal team whom I know in Moscow who will undoubtedly be in touch with Wikimedia to have this file removed; regardless of what discussion says here, amateur wikilawyers do not override the law of Russia. --russavia (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepEverybody agrees it is trademarked and all the legal restrictions that come with it do apply, but it is not under copyright protection and can stay here. --Jarekt (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is certainly trademarked, but if copyright has expired, then Aeroflot no longer owns those rights (nobody does). Since it is trademarked, then yes, any misleading usage would violate the trademark rights. However, simply hosting the image here does not do that (nor does usage in Aeroflot-related Wikipedia articles), so we keep such images if the copyright status itself is OK. We just have to make sure that none of wikimedia's usages violate the trademark, and add the {{Trademarked}} tag so that third-party users are also aware of the restriction (if they violate it, it is their problem). Our "non-commercial" restriction is only for the copyright license specifically, as noted in a footnote on Commons:Licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My contact at Aeroflot in Moscow is currently obtaining the name of the person who is responsible for the logo, and it is their belief (which will be verified) that they survived the Great Patriotic War, which would mean that this image is not copyright free. Once the name is obtained, which will be shortly, this will be provided, therefore the major condition for claiming PD-Russia is not met. Not being bothered to find out the authors name and whether conditions are met is not reason enough for editors to claim PD when this is not the case. --russavia (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case the work designing the logo was done as work for hire than Aeroflot and not the author might have the copyrights than the copyright would have expired after 70 years from date of creation and not from death of the author. Someone with knowledge of Russian copyright law should check those two possibilities and how they are handled by Russian law. So knowing the author might not change the logo legal status, but it is always good to keep track of. --Jarekt (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe work for hire existed in the USSR. Additionally, copyright is life of author plus 70 years under Russian law. Details from Aeroflot are still some days away I have been advised. What I am still questioning is why the uploader of this image has not attempted to find this information himself, rather than placing something in the public domain that he has no right to do. --russavia (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Please explain “fake screenshot”. Do you mean “fake license”?
I mean Firefox was modified from the original one... and kinda makes it a "fake"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.133.9 (talk • contribs) 2008-09-19T09:40:26 (UTC)
The icon (well, the bookmark, for it wouldn't remove the icon if the URL is changed) replaced, search engine switched, tabs closed/open – all by the means of a pure Firefox 1.5, not even about:config. --AVRS (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LibriVox is free: if you go to http://librivox.org and scroll down a bit, you will see there Creative Commons' public domain button with “NO RIGHTS RESERVED” on it.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
image is taken from http://www.kockums.se/news/photostock/photosurface.html, the user claims to be the author of this image. I nominated this image for deletion (instead of speedydeletion because of copyright vioaltion) to figure out, what the statement on the top of the linked site could mean to us. It seems to be, that this images are "copyrighted free use", but they are realy free for commercial use and modifications? Maybe we can relicence this image and keep it. --Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete I remember that some pictures which uploaded by this user may have license "Creative Commons Attribution, Non Commercial, No Derivative Works 2.5 License" from Thai Royal Bureau of Household. See the list as follow
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As the creator and uploader of this image, only now I was warned that it is not representative of Calcineurin but of the BID protein (as described on the PDB page linked from the summary section), for which there is already an image uploaded to Commons. Parutakupiutalk || contribs13:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Image in scope, being unused is not reason to delete. -Nard the Bard 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Indeed. -Nard the Bard 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment See all other images from this uploader. Out of scope, I think.--Sdrtirs (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep Screenshots of Wikipedia pages are GFDL, except for the Wikipedia logo which is De minimis and may be tagged with {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. Tcrow777 Talk 01:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Question Has someone in the Foundation seen a similar deletion request, and commented about whether we should do in such cases? Diti (talk to the penguin) 17:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
