The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nokia C5-00.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is this image really free? Is the image of a cellphone not an intellectual property of its manufacturer -- in this case Nokia? I know that there are 3D intellectual properties from which one cannot make a 2D picture without author's permission, such as sculptures and action figures. But a cellphone? Fleet Command (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it should not be free. I don't see how photographs of commercial products would automatically be unfree, unless of course the image itself (not its subject) is under copyright, as is the case with Nokia's own promotional images. Doesn't Wikipedia have plenty of user-taken photographs of cellphones already? JIP | Talk 14:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically? I certainly said 3D works of art, not automatically and not because they are commercial. And other stuff exists is really not a good argument here. If somebody said that a cellphone is not considered a 3D work of art, I'd have accepted it far easier than what you say. Fleet Command (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and all photographs of a cell phone would be of a 3D object. Therefore any picture of a phone would have to be nonfree. Furthermore, by your logic, any picture of an object designed after 1927 would also be unfree. As this is clearly not the case, it is therefore obvious that merely being a designed object is insufficient to be a 3D work of art. The fact that "other stuff exists" is very relevant, as it would mean that a significant number (if not majority) of photos on Wikimedia were also nonfree.

In summation, a designed object is not necessarily a work of art, and, if it is not, a 2D image of the object would not be inherently copyrighted. — trlkly 11:31, 16 September 2011 (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 file 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 F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mexican Americans Collage.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uses non-free image in free collage. Phospheros (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not useful in the place where it was targeted for use; infobox of Mexican American. Non-free images would never be acceptable for this use, and there already is an image (File:Mexican Americans.png) which serves this purpose. There's no question the image contains non-free files in the collage. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THEN PLEASE CREATE AN IMAGE THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS MEXICAN AMERICANS ACCURATELY, you're adding useless people instead of icons that are Mexican Americans. Please if you're going to create an image, KNOW WHAT TO PUT IN IT. Thank you.

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 file 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hholliday.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not certain the original image is from the magazine as there's no link for it. Uploader described it as being substantially altered. We hope (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "differs uniquely and substantially from the originally published image"? Right. Derivative work, regardless of the manipulation of the image. Since we don't know the copyright of the original, we have to presume copyrighted. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2011 (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.