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, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rain-chains-and-Accessories.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a mash-up of non-free product images from http://www.monarchrainchains.com/ 64.93.125.3 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 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 discussion was: Keep now that the image has been corrected. The old version has been deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gateway Project overview map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is it just me or is the background map from Google? Compare the image with Google and OSM. The placement of names, highway numbers and the park icon are the same as Google. Google has obviously updated their map since, but it looks to me like the background spoils the whole image. Samuell ^{Lift me up} or _{put me down} 02:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are probably right. I was unclear how licencing worked when something like Google mapping (unfree) was used within a Federal document (free). If you are saying that one needs to check each part of a federal publication for possible contamination with unidentified copyright material then this map certainly needs to go while the background is converted to OSM because it almost certainly is Google mapping. PeterEastern (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now replaced the disputed image with one a new one that I have created myself using an openstreetmap for the base map. I have converted the license to cc-by-sa now and acknowledged use the OSM mapping data. I believe this has now removed any possibly issue with this image. PeterEastern (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I assume that the replacement of the base map has resolved the issue and that someone will remove the dispute tag in due course? PeterEastern (talk) 20:41, 10 October 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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mika Kallio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• http://www.ktmimages.com/image/view/11239 would suggest that these KTM Press/Gigi Soldano photos are not free for commerical use:

"Royalty free images for editorial use only. No commercial use allowed. Photographers credit must be used." Techtri (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The permission was, as noted on the image page, this: "Using images for any public purpose is only copyright-free when mentioning the photographer Gigi Soldano. [emphasis mine]" Wayback Machine is still not working. Prolog (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once an image is released under a license, the license cannot be revoked, even if they stop distributing it under that license. As for the veracity of the original license, I'll take Prolog's word for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 10 October 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MGM Channel.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I believe that this goes beyond basic geometric shapes, making the logo eligible for copyright (TM & © 2000-2011 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.). Techtri (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed. I have updated the image description page to reflect its non-free status, so it should be good to go. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 10 October 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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlayboyTV.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I believe this logo goes beyond type and simple geometric shapes, crossing the threshold of originality required for copyright. Techtri (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of copyright status, it's simply an inferior red version of File:Playboy TV Logo.svg, and we don't need both. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 10 October 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 discussion was: Keep.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is not a screenshot. Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 16:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I watched the music video on Youtube, and this is clearly a screenshot from it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a still. Stills are different from screenshots. You can compare an actual screenshot with the still and you will see the one used on the article it's not a screenshot. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  But in any case, this is highly representative of the content in the video; it was probably taken with a still camera as the video was being shot. While it's technically not a screenshot, remember WP:LAWYER: What is the spirit under which ((Non-free music video screenshot)) was created? I think its purpose is to allow readers to see a representative sample of the music video to further their understanding of the subject, and this picture serves that purpose just like a real screenshot would. If you really insist on formality, then just replace it with ((Non-free promotional)). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per King of Hearts's comment. Novice7 (talk) 04:33, 18 October 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.