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 as non-free. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo, highly unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this version of the logo for the radio station that uses it and retain rights to it (the radio station that uses it does so with permission). Nicklima (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This image shouldn't be deleted, since a fair use claim would be fine in the article it's in. But it should be tagged as non-free unless/until Nicklima or WXIN sends in an OTRS ticket. Could someone tell him how to do this, preferably through e-mail or his talk page? – Quadell ^(talk) 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, fine. I informed the uploader, and changed the image description page to specify non-free use. It's currently used according to our NFCC. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:15, 23 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims to have created this himself, but probably he just meant that he made the collage. The middle picture is from this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/world/europe/30grozny.html?_r=1&hp — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 12:29, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarked - unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - found a site with images with the same watermark: http://my.opera.com/elnazpix2pix/albums/ . A Google search returns some relevant-looking results. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The subject matter of the image is certainly relevant, there are no examples of adult women featured in the girl article which someone added this to when the term clearly is used for them as well. Even so, I do agree, it should be verified that the copyright holder approves. Furthermore, I don't think a watermark is appropriate for images on Wikipedia, because it is a means of advertising the website. I am removing a link to the picture from that article. If someone objects, please discuss it on the talk page. The 'smut' topic is already something that has brought up the inclusion of controversial images. If the holder can be contacted and they approve then an edited version without the bottom (chop it off) could be appropriate though. Tyciol (talk) 13:12, 13 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No PD at source. — neuro^(talk) 15:34, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various results at TE, promotional photo, highly unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but good fair use candidate. Dcoetzee 03:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, per Dcoetzee, but then again there's the possibility of free images floating around since Nsync existed during the millenium right? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:49, 16 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced to 'TV guide', so unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 15:38, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo, unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 15:39, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo, unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 15:40, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find CC at source, no OTRS. — neuro^(talk) 15:41, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional photo, highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although it's a good fair use candidate as long as the article on the band Dananananaykroyd isn't deleted. Dcoetzee 03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, it is replaceable. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:00, 26 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find CC at source's website, http://www.calder.org/. — neuro^(talk) 19:45, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find CC at source's website, http://www.calder.org/. — neuro^(talk) 19:45, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio - [1] — neuro^(talk) 19:51, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main image seems to have come from some sort of broadcast - shows elements of video artefacts. — neuro^(talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Photoshopped - poorly - to put some guy next to Obama so he can show his friends. Out of scope. Dcoetzee 03:45, 12 March 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 debate was: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the image. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUI or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason GrabBrain (talk) 20:15, 11 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks too good to be free. ViperSnake151 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredibly poor reason. WP:FP much? — neuro^(talk) 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better reason is that it's an uncreative derivative of a copyrighted design, and is the sole focus of the image. Dcoetzee 03:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't all that good. The White balance is off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.4.132 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly the same image as Apple have on the box of the product (see in the background of this picture). AlexJ (talk) 14:05, 14 March 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that content coming out of the app used to create this is GFDL. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? I don't recall ever seeing any application with a notice saying "content created with this application is GFDL", do you? Are you saying that images must be created with specific applications to be allowed? Why has nobody come forward in the three years since I created this image to complain? —Phil | Talk 21:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is different - in PS or GIMP you are creating images from scratch or deriving images from sources which you must attribute and license to accordingly. On the site you specify, you are creating a derivative of the parts available to you (which are not released under the GFDL), which is not the same. — neuro^(talk) 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This work may be considered a derivative work of the non-free components from which it is assembled, or such use may be considered de minimis and so not subject to copyright. This is a big grey area and I won't speculate on it. Dcoetzee 03:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it could be considered de minimis since it is assembled only of non-free parts. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:57, 26 March 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: Deleted. Although widely used, this is not a free image, and its creation is not covered by PD-GE-exempt.

This is obviously a modern image/screenshot, and although the national anthem is not copyrighted, video of someone performing the anthem is copyrightable. Unfortunately, this is not PD-GE-exempt and is a copyright vio. Russavia ^Dialogue 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the above, pending clarification of the scope of ((PD-GE-exempt)) by an accepted authority on Georgian copyrights. Who can help here? Richwales (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this video is in fact a work of a Georgian government employee, then there wouldn't be an issue; however, the possibility exists that the video was produced and broadcast by a private corporation who attended the event. I don't see any proof of this, but there is a good case to be made on both sides. Dcoetzee 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this video is, in fact, an official production of the Georgian government. I've been told it is routinely shown at sign-on and sign-off by the government-owned Georgian Public Broadcasting. The entire video is a succession of numerous short scenes, including Georgian military personnel and Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili. See Image:Tavisupleba Video Montage.jpg — from which the Paata Burchuladze photo was taken — for more information (including a link to the video on YouTube). Richwales (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being the work of a government isn't good enough unfortunately. As per all the bullshit we had to go thru just to get Kremlin images, and when Russian law is worded exactly the same, refer to ((PD-RU-exempt)). This is going to have to go, unless someone get's permission from the relevant Georgian government ministry in writing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply a reference to discussion or history regarding the problem you cited with images of the Kremlin? I went to the ((PD-RU-exempt)) template but couldn't find anything mentioned on its talk page. Without something specific (perhaps leading to ((PD-RU-exempt)) and similar templates becoming explicitly deprecated), I don't think we can or should simply assume all of these templates are simply no good. For what it may be worth, I sent a message via the President of Georgia's web site last night, describing the issue and asking for an official position; I'll let people know when/if I hear something back. Richwales (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can anyone substantiate or clarify the claim (as best I can tell here) that ((PD-GE-exempt)) is not acceptable as a free-to-use justification, even when the material in question does evidently meet the described criteria? If this is what is being asserted, I don't feel that a challenge to an individual image tagged with this template is the right venue to discuss the general problem; rather, the overall validity of ((PD-GE-exempt)), ((PD-RU-exempt)), and other such templates needs to be considered in an appropriate forum. Richwales (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/License_tags_of_russian_websites - link to discussion there. There are not exempt, as the photos aren't "official documents" - official documents are laws, decrees, etc - they don't cover photos. People need to go thru here the same rubbish that we had to go thru - that means writing letters, etc and getting explicit permission to use these materials. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above link appears to be dead. Could you re-check it? It's also not clear to me how relevant a narrow definition of "official documents" is here, since both the Russian and Georgian exemption templates list other categories which could apply — in this case, for example, I was making a claim under the Georgian "official symbols of state" category, not the "official documents" category. Richwales (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia's Copyright law Article 8 1 b) applies here accrording to which "official symbols of state (flag, emblem, anthem, award, monetary symbols, other official signs and symbols of state)" are in PD. I don't see any copyvio here. --Kober^Talk 20:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it doesn't. As it's not an "official symbol". The music and words of the anthem are PD. A screenshot of a video of someone producing that anthem is NOT PD. Also, the Georgia Broadcasting Service also claims copyright over materials on their website, which goes against the argument being used here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richwales, try Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites

Thanks. I just finished reading the above material, and I have two thoughts.

First, it still is not evident to me that any of this applies in the current case. It still seems plain to me that the "official symbols of state" clause in the Georgian exemption (as currently framed and apparently commonly understood) does apply here. If there is a real reason to believe that it does not apply, then this seems to me to be striking at the heart of the exemption itself, and we ought to be examining the ((PD-GE-exempt)) exemption as a whole (not just its application to a single image), in a forum appropriate for discussing the exemption as a whole (not here).

Second, I found it disturbing that in the above Commons case, a decision was made to delete the challenged material despite a lack of consensus for doing so — indeed, in defiance of an overwhelming body of opinion in favour of keeping the material. I would hope not to see the same sort of thing happen here. Richwales (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there will be no confusion at all, I still explicitly oppose the proposal to delete this file. As best I can tell, two users so far (Kober and myself) believe it is "free"; one user (Russavia) believes it's "unfree"; and one (Dcoetzee) is undecided. We may not have a clear consensus at this point to say that the file is OK, but we definitely do not have any sort of consensus to say that it is not OK. While I would agree that a copyvio situation cannot be ignored by consensus, I would propose that if there really is a copyvio here, it's reasonable for us to expect to see more than one user arguing for this view. Richwales (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can oppose, but it isn't grounded in fact. The words and music to the national anthem, according to the law are not copyrightable. However, performances of the anthem are copyrightable. For example Georgian Public Broadcasting has a notice on their website © 2009 Georgian Public Broadcasting. This needs to be deleted, and I have also nominated for deletion the commons copy that an editor decided to upload. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On review of the relevant law, I think it's rather vague, but that Russavia's interpretation is admissible. Is this video of the performance of the national anthem an "official symbol of state"? Well, not exactly, although it is a depiction of one. It's certainly not an official "document." We either need a representative of the Georgian government or a lawyer with experience in this area to say it is okay - or we should be on the safe side and delete it. Frankly, it's a terrible image anyway, even at web resolution. I'm sure the anthem is publically performed often enough in Georgia that this image could be replaced by a free one. Dcoetzee 19:26, 31 March 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.