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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilots-uniforms2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clear Copy/paste of Marc Okkonen's work for the National Baseball Hall of Fame baseball uniform history project "Dressed to the Nines". Link can be found here Achowat (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture is gone, and I cannot remember clearly, but it is my belief that the picture was completely recreated and not a "clear copy/paste" as claimed above Primus128 (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annie Seel portrait Alexoch Martin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source URL includes the statement "Photos below are free to use for press and promotion of Annie Seel. Photo credit and photo byline "AnnieSeel.com/MaindruPhoto" is requested." I do not read that to be the irrevocable release of of the photos under a licence compatible with Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Plenty of people release press photographs, but unless it explicitly includes a compatible licence I do not believe that it can be used. Biker Biker (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep, but only in the Annie Seel article, or possibly others, that can meet WP:NFCC#8. NB - this is not a fair use claim, it's more lax than that.

The incorrect PD licence tag also needs to be removed and replaced by a simple cited quote of the original site's requirements. It should also be tagged as not for moving to Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled how NFCC#8 can apply to a living person? This isn't a portrait of a person portraying a film character. Given that she is living there is the potential to get real pictures with a compatible licence. Perhaps she could be approached to release a photograph and then record this through OTRS? In the meantime though there is no valid reason to keep this image. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8: "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic," I think a portrait in a bio is reasonable for this. The licence both permits and implicitly requires it to be used "for promotion", so we can't simply throw it into the Commons pool. Meeting #8 is, IMHO, a reasonable bar to indicate this, and it's consistent with WP local terminology. We're not required to meet any of the freefair use criteria (we're not claiming freefair use), but this one is just convenient. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo above.

I think that given the photograph was taken from the subject's own website and that no limitations beyond accreditation are request, legally we can accept it is free to use. I don't know how your system works but I suspect if you approached the subject they would be perfectly happy to offer additional verification. Unfortunately, I cannot afford the time to do so. I agree with "only in the Annie Seel article." --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photographs of people are generally only allowed when they are dead, because no further photographs can be taken. Given that the subject is alive, there is every reason to suggest that somebody could at some point publish an image under a suitable licence. If it were as simple as allowing a publicity photo because "it adds value to the article" then every single actor/actress article on Wikipedia would have a publicity shot on it. However, that isn't the case. As an example, look at all the actors (in the info box) for the UK BBC TV show Casualty. Only a couple of them have photos, yet I bet every one of them will have online publicity shots on their own or their agent's websites. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may "have" publicity shots on their website but, from experience, few 'offer' specific photos with specific permission to use them. It is quite a different matter. --Bridge Boy (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The licence also states "promotional purposes". Can I take this image and make a derivative from it? Can I make a derogatory derivative from it? Can I use it as a poster against motorcycling up Everest with the caption, "Won't someone think of the Yeti kittens?" across the top? The last two are anti-promotional, so breach the site's licence, yet the freedom to do that would be a clear requirement for a free licence. This is one reason why Commons is quite a poor fit for promotional images. There was recently a large set of high-quality French Air Force images deleted from Commons, sadly but rightly, because their licence forbade "derogatory" use against the Air Force (understandable), yet a free licence must always permit that too.

If this was just a question of attribution, then the rights owner could use a CC-by licence, it could go to Commons and all would be simple. NB - it's not our place to ever replace an owner's badly worded licence with a CC licence, even if we "think" it's "clear" that this is what they "intended". Certainly tagging this image originally with a PD licence tag was a bad mistake

"Non-free photographs of people are generally only allowed when they are dead, " I disagree. Fair-use images might be restricted to that, but this is just a non-free, not as far as fair-use. There's a small and discouraged gap on WP (not on Commons) where some images can exist, usually under licences like this one. Apart from anything, that's a good thing for non-US users of en:WP, because fair-use is a US-only concept anyway and not clearly available to me here in the UK. I can re-use and republish en:WP content far more easily with this type of licence than I can with fair-use, something that's almost never appreciated by US editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2012 (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: Speedy delete per uploader. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annie Seel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source URL includes the statement "Photos below are free to use for press and promotion of Annie Seel. Photo credit and photo byline "AnnieSeel.com/MaindruPhoto" is requested." I do not read that to be the irrevocable release of of the photos under a licence compatible with Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Plenty of people release press photographs, but unless it explicitly includes a compatible licence I do not believe that it can be used. Biker Biker (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one can be deleted. I thought the upload failed because it was too large and uploaded the lower resolution File:Annie Seel portrait Alexoch Martin.jpg instead. Please contact the owner for any further clarification. --Bridge Boy (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Larger version of the other File:Annie Seel.jpg image. Within a reasonable use on WP, we only need and can only justify the smaller one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2012 (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 - previous discussions seem to have shown the laurels are not protected - cf. commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of the United Nations.png. They are probably not protected in the US per ((PD-US-no notice)). In any case, a larger discussion of the laurels should take place on Commons, not simply a single deletion request here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Users Advice Bureau.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Re-uses UN laurels which are thought to be protected. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Inquiry - The copyright notice on File:Flag of the United Nations.svg says that that the Flag is public domain. In what way would the Olive branches (not laurels, just saying) be protected where the larger flag is not? (Especially nothing that File:Emblem of the United Nations.svg is also public domain)? 17:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  The concern is not about copyright protections here but insignia rights. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to play the "Ignorance Card" in regards to the freeness of a file. Could you give me the cliff notes version? Achowat (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is that the file is unfree because the UN laurels are a protected symbol as the logo of a 'transnational' body,

i.E You can't use obvious UN symbology for stuff that isn't UN related. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this sounds rude or disrespectful (that's really not the case) but can you show your work, either through en.Wikipedia or Commons policies or guidelines, or through US Federal or Florida State law that says a portion of a public doman image is protected against use in "non-related" fields? Achowat (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2012 (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.