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: Kept, free image

Theme parks, especially Disneyland, typically impose conditions of entry stating photographs taken within their borders are to be used for non-commercial purposes only. MER-C 04:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure this merely means that the photographer is in breach of contract by distributing the images as free. It does not, however, invalidate the free license that was assigned. It is common practice to allow such images (there are hundreds on Commons, I'm sure). I know this issue has come up before (here for example, you seem to agree that such an image attached to an adhesion contract is acceptable), and I think we need a larger scale policy discussion somewhere (or just ask Mike Godwin) before we decide on individual cases like this. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The photographer broke their contract with the theme park, but that does not in any way affect the licensing or legal status of the image. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned 'album art', if legit album unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this should be deleted. It is unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder of an album cover. Note also that it is not possible to add this image under a fair use rationale to an existing article, as there are no articles on either the band or the album. Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 12 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned book cover, if legit, uploader would likely not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this should be deleted. It is unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder of a book cover. Note also that it is not possible to add this image under a fair use rationale to an existing article, as there does not appear to be an article on this book. Awadewit (talk) 23:56, 12 April 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: Kept, free

orphaned Indonesian passport cover, not sure of (c), but not likely "self" Skier Dude (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia's coat of arms is not subject to copyright protection, per Commons. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IronGargoyle. This image appears to be in the PD. Note also that Commons states, quoting a translation of the Indonesian Copyright Act of 2002, "Publication and/or distribution of any work that has been published and/or distributed by or in the name of the Government, except if the copyright of the object is stated as protected, either in law or in writing on the work, at the time the work was published and/or distributed." - We could ask the uploader if there is such a statement in the passport to make sure. Thoughts on this? Awadewit (talk) 00:00, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no source, appears to be Burlington Northern material Skier Dude (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image should be deleted. It appears to be Burlington Northern material, as Skier Dude, says and there does not seem to be any obvious article to which we can add the image under a fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no source, appears to be Burlington Northern material Skier Dude (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image should be deleted. It appears to be Burlington Northern material, as Skier Dude, says and there does not seem to be any obvious article to which we can add the image under a fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned magazine(?) cover, if legit, uploader would not likely be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this file should be deleted. The "cover" may be owned by the uploader (it is very amateurish), but it is impossible to verify this. The uploader made only a handful of edits back in December 2008 (all were image uploads) and hasn't responded to any talk page messages. Awadewit (talk) 00:23, 13 April 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 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 G6 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned magazine(?) cover, if legit, uploader would not likely be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this file should be deleted. The "cover" may be owned by the uploader (it is very amateurish), but it is impossible to verify this. The uploader made only a handful of edits back in December 2008 (all were image uploads) and hasn't responded to any talk page messages. Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, appears to be book cover, if legit, uploader would likely not be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image should be deleted. It is unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder. I am not sure what article this would be appropriate for, as the title is not in English. I was going to contact the uploader and recommend that they create a FUR, but I see they have been banned. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 13 April 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: Kept, free

orphaned logo, if legit, uploader not likely the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This logo cannot be copyrighted. WP:LOGO explains that a logo will be copyright-free if it "is simply a sequence of letters or written words: characters from a typeface are uncopyrightable in the U.S., so logos that consist purely of characters from a typeface are also uncopyrightable." Note, however, that some group may have a trademark claim on the logo. Awadewit (talk) 00:31, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned logo, if legit, uploader not likely the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image was apparently replaced by a different version which is used in the article Spring Fest. It is now orphaned and should be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 13 April 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 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned logo, if legit, uploader not likely the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is being used at Spring Fest. I have left a message on the article talk page asking the editors to provide a FUR for it. Awadewit (talk) 00:39, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No GFDL at source. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image should be deleted. There is no evidence that the image was released under the GFDL at the source. Awadewit (talk) 00:43, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of CC at source. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image should be deleted. There is no evidence that it has been released under CC-by-SA at the source. Awadewit (talk) 00:45, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Website states "© Copyright 2008 Amrita Technologies" — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this image is exempt from the general copyright claim, there is no indication of that (particularly since the PNG file is linked directly). I agree that this image should be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 00:47, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source states "© 2009 Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham" — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image should be deleted. This image comes from a series of images labeled "Campus tour", each of which is explicitly labeled "Copyright 2005 Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham". Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 13 April 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: Delete per G7 (see #File:APTIS Status Code FAMCH.JPG). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The design on this card is presumably copyrighted, as it was simply scanned and uploaded by the uploader. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:29, 11 April 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: Delete per G7 (see #File:APTIS Status Code FAMCH.JPG). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted railcard design, simply scanning the image in does not make the uploader the copyright holder. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:10, 11 April 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: Delete per G7 (see #File:APTIS Status Code FAMCH.JPG). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted railcard design, simply scanning the image in does not make the uploader the copyright holder. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:10, 11 April 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: Delete per G7 (see #File:APTIS Status Code FAMCH.JPG). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted railcard design, simply scanning the image in does not make the uploader the copyright holder. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:10, 11 April 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: Delete per G7 (see #File:APTIS Status Code FAMCH.JPG). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted railcard design, simply scanning the image in does not make the uploader the copyright holder. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:11, 11 April 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: Delete per G7 (see #File:APTIS Status Code FAMCH.JPG). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted railcard design, simply scanning the image in does not make the uploader the copyright holder. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:11, 11 April 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: Delete per G7 (see #File:APTIS Status Code FAMCH.JPG). –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted railcard design, simply scanning the image in does not make the uploader the copyright holder. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:11, 11 April 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: Delete per G7. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted railcard design, simply scanning the image in does not make the uploader the copyright holder. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 13:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For this and the seven above, pls delete; this was a case of beginner's misunderstanding of PD regulations on my part. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:04, 12 April 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: Retag with ((non-free logo)). Now tagged also with ((di-no source)) and ((di-no fair use rationale)); if someone could fix these, that would be great.. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned logo, if legit, uploader would not likely be (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate, but I'm not sure how to delete it. Uploading images seems to be beyond my comprehension, even now. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I deleted one copy and I see you also uploaded it to Commons as File:Peanutlogo.jpg (wich is the one actualy used in the Shaking Ray Levis article, and that I have now tagged as lacking permission confirmation as well), what you have not done however is adress the actual issue here: On what basis can you say that the copyright holder of the logo have agreed to release it under the GFDL / CC-BY-SA-2.0 dual license combination? Are you personaly the sole copyright holder of this logo as the current information implies? Or do you have any correspondence with the copyright holder(s) indicating that they wish to release the logo under this license? If you do please forward such correspondense to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, if not the Commons version should be delted and this one should be put into Shaking Ray Levis in it's place with the license changed to ((Non-free logo)) along with a "standard" logo non-free use rationale. --Sherool (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-tag as ((Non-free logo)) and replace the Commons version currently in the Shaking Ray Levis article (unless permission to release under free license is confirmed naturaly), per my comment above. --Sherool (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I am not the copyright holder, but I will dig through my files and contact the org and try to straighten my mess out per your suggestions above. Flowanda | Talk 20:44, 20 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, no source, appears to be professional shot Skier Dude (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this image should be deleted. This looks professional to me as well, particularly since it has no metadata and is such a good "action shot". Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 13 April 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 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is one of rita disk cover. i didn't found it in google images, but as you can see from the user talk page, most of his uploads was copyright violations Itzike (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what album this is a cover for. Is it Rita (album)? If so, we should at least try to leave a note on the article talk page asking for a FUR before we delete the image. Awadewit (talk) 00:57, 13 April 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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, copyvios

Also nominated for the same reason:

• File:Show reporter.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Journalists.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Presidenttokic.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Chrisk.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Closingcredits.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tagged with ((PD-Yugoslavia)), but it obviously doesn't have anything to do with either Yugoslavia or public domain (screenshot of a TV show). —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with PD-Yugoslavia because it has a lot to do with former Yugoslavia. The tag itself reads: "exempt from copyright protection by the Agreement on succession issues; Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, being in sovereign equality the five successor States to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, have agreed in Vienna on 29th of June 2001. The Agreement came to power on 2004-03-25." Croatia is one of the aforementioned successor states. It also arguably has a lot to do with public domain. Following texts are from Wikpedia sourcs: "The public domain is generally defined (e.g. by the U.S. Copyright Office) as the sum of works that are not copyrighted, i.e. that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or whose copyright has expired." On the picture entitled "Closingcredits.jpg" it is clearly visible the tv show lists no copyright information in the closing credits. "There is no globally valid "International Copyright Law" that would take precedence over local laws." Croatia is not in the EU yet, so the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection does not apply. The pictures proposed for deletion are screenshots of a Croatian NATIONAL GOVERNMENT-OWNED television station. Being government property the PD-Yugoslavia tag applies. These pictures are of importance to the article because they reinforce the notability of the person who is the subject. They simply show the person's media coverage. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, upon further research, an actual copyright law for Croatia was recently established on 22 October 2003 [1](Croatian National Journal 167/03, the text of the newly established law in Croatian) and later in 2007. Following is a Guide printed by a Croatian Ministry that informs of copyright laws harmonization coming up in 2009 because of the impending accession to the European Union; [2]. Regardless, taking into consideration that this show aired (06 September 2003) before even the initial copyright laws were introduced (October 2003), we again arrive to the conclusion that the subject matter is public domain and the PD-Yugoslavia tag is the most appropriate tag for these pictures currently. I kindly request these pictures not be deleted, please allow Wikipedia to be what it is: a great source of information and pictures if the copyright status is adequately explained and defended which I believe is the case here. Thank you. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Works are copyrighted in Croatia for 70 after the death of the author, whether they air on a public TV station or not, and Croatia is a member of the Berne Convention, the UCC, and other international copyright treaties. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:14, 25 April 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.