Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 6

< Wikipedia:Files for discussion

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6

File:Joe's-flowdiagram.gif

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joe's-flowdiagram.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kaho li (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Joe-costa-1.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joe-costa-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Radzad (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Joealonso.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joealonso.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joealonso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

orphaned userphoto Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:JoeBlur.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoeBlur.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Psyopjedi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Bevenson2.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bevenson2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Psyopjedi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Jerry Ragovoy.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerry Ragovoy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lamro (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The use of this image does meet WP:NFCC#2, respect for commercial opportunities. This image is from the New York Times with EXIF data that specifically states "Licensing requests should be sent to photosales@nytimes.com." Whpq (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the original uploder has now uploaded a different image without updating the file information so there is no file source identified for the current image as the source information still refers to the previous image. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original upload for violation of WP:NFCC#2 and the second image for violation of WP:NFCC#10a. I checked the EXIF in Exiftool, and it indeed mentions New York Times. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Ultra HD Premium (logo).svg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ultra HD Premium (logo).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Locke Cole (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious copyright tag. The thing to the left of the two words is probably copyrighted. Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's complex enough for copyright. Either delete if it remains unused or convert to fair use if it gets put in an article. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it's complicated enough to qualify for copyright. A rainbow gradient with a number of simple geometric shapes likely doesn't meet the threshold of originality necessary to make it copyrightable. It is, however, likely to be trademarked. But that doesn't put it under fair-use. ~~Having said all that, delete as I could never get the file to render correctly. If I can overcome the technical issues with the vector image, I'll upload it again at a later date.~~ —Locke Cole • t • c 17:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, apparently my struck comment above was incorrect and it is rendering correctly now. I've placed it in an article. My prior comment about it not being original enough to be eligible for copyright still stands. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The file's use in Ultra-high-definition television seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. It is not a logo for 'ultra-high-definition television' but for a specific product by 'UHD Alliance'. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NFCC does not apply, as this image is not original enough to be eligible for copyright. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The thing to the left looks more complex than this and this, and both of them are copyrighted according to c:COM:TOO#United States. Therefore, this is a non-free file, restricted to WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC#7 in particular. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And if the thing on the left were by itself, I would barely agree. However, taken as a whole (which is what the threshold of originality should do), that thing to the left only accounts for 25% of the overall work, the rest being simple text and a rectangle. The thing to the left is also a simple geometric pattern overlaid on a rainbow gradient, hardly the most complex image ever... —Locke Cole • t • c 15:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If the thing to the left is copyrighted, then the combined logo is also copyrighted, since the thing to the left makes up an important component of the logo. Also check this PDF: a simple border was enough to make a logo copyrighted. The variant without a border is not copyrighted while the one with a border is copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Is there a registered copyright for this logo? As that's the only way I would change my position on this. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 12 May 2016 (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.

File:Soft Desktop Pro.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soft Desktop Pro.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jamesatkocatan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No evidence of self-work. The shield design is in use in other logos (see http://problutions.com/) so the original source of that design is called into question. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 17:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The image was taken on a logo creation website and has since been trademarked. See http://www.normytelecoms.co.uk/Desktop_Professional/p3674509_15818466.aspx for more. Jamesatkocatan (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trademark is different than copyright. It's possible that the logo creation website maintains copyright over their shield design. Can you provide the site in question? --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - GraphicSprings is the website used Jamesatkocatan (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2016 (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.

File:First Large-Scale Public Bachor Mosaic Installation Chicago Thorndale L Station.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:First Large-Scale Public Bachor Mosaic Installation Chicago Thorndale L Station.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Melvin toast (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#1 because WP:FREER applies. This is a public place. Someone could take their own photo and release their rights to the photo under a free license. The image would still require fair use as a derivative work of the artwork, but it would nevertheless be FREER. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 17:57, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Army (Official EP Cover) by Ellie Goulding.png

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Army (Official EP Cover) by Ellie Goulding.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ilovechristianmusic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3 & WP:NFCC#8: redundant to File:Army (Official Single Cover) by Ellie Goulding.png. Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Colombo7779.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colombo7779.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Attilios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

no date at source, not self-evident that it was created created prior to 1976 Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Bltw trophy.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bltw trophy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joeyc825 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan, used for a short-lived section in Scavenger Hunt in 2007 (diff). Description says that Marisa Kambour took the photo but claims that the uploader is the copyright holder, but I have the sense from context that the uploader Joeyc825 is Joe "Joey" Carberry (the namesake of the Scavenger Hunt). Because the uploader has not been active since 2007, it is unlikely that we will be able to settle this question of copyright and because of Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, I am hesitant to transfer the image without more clarity. ★ Bigr Tex 21:35, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Buellers trinity.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buellers trinity.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joeyc825 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan, used for a short-lived section in Scavenger Hunt in 2007 (diff). Description says that Noel of the Buellers took the photo but claims that the uploader is the copyright holder, but I have the sense from context that the uploader Joeyc825 is Joe "Joey" Carberry (the namesake of the Scavenger Hunt). Because the uploader has not been active since 2007, it is unlikely that we will be able to settle this question of copyright and because of Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, I am hesitant to transfer the image without more clarity. ★ Bigr Tex 21:35, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Konak 02.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konak 02.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Enderender (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It says Taken by Ayhan but the uploader is Enderender. Who is Ayhan? Also, this website has a thumbnail of the image, and Google translates the timestamp as "8 years ago - Tue 02 Jul 2007, 19:26" which was a few weeks before the image was uploaded to Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Machur.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machur.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Theoded (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Possibly unfree file, appears to be a screen capture of a television series and there is no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. I do not feel that I have sufficient information to craft an appropriate source and rationale for the image. ★ Bigr Tex 22:29, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Madadude.JPG

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madadude.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blackadam2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unencyclopedic Orphan, logo of the uploader's youtube production company. ★ Bigr Tex 22:43, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Old Madadude.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Madadude.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blackadam2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unencyclopedic Orphan, logo of the uploader's youtube production company. ★ Bigr Tex 22:43, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:MadadudeLogo.JPG

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MadadudeLogo.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blackadam2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unencyclopedic Orphan, logo of the uploader's youtube production company. ★ Bigr Tex 22:43, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Madden-Finucane.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madden-Finucane.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jimmyofire (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Likely unencyclopedic - We currently do not have an article about the law firm, and if we did in the future I would expect us to use a logo copied from their website instead of one created by a user. ★ Bigr Tex 22:52, 6 May 2016 (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.

File:Desktop Pro.png

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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desktop Pro.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jamesatkocatan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The permission granted at the cited site says, "The images developed by Normanton Telecom Ltd are licensed to our dealers for usage on informative websites such as Wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution License 1.0." To my mind this statement is unclear whether the license is only for "informative websites such as Wikipedia" or for anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. —teb728 t c 23:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if 'informative websites such as Wikipedia' may use the material provided that they comply with the terms of CC-BY-1.0 and that others can't use the material at all. This would mean that the file is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to know if it's even possible to license CC to specific groups. Wikimedia tends to interpret CC licenses as allowing use "for any purpose by anyone", but the phraseology in the actual license says "you may", and defines you as "an individual or entity exercising rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous violation." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The text has been updated and I will update the file now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesatkocatan (talk • contribs) 08:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The file no longer cites permission at normytelecoms.co.uk, and the permission at the formerly cited page now reads, "The images are Copyright Protected and Trademarked. Normanton Telecoms allows the usage of the pictures as long as mention of the company is made." That is definitely not a free license, for there is no permission for derivative works. —teb728 t c 03:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - What should the company put on it's website for free license? Jamesatkocatan (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Finnusertop: Due to the extra restrictions, the file is not licensed under a Creative Commons licence but under a modified licence. Note that you need to be careful with how you use trademarks such as the Creative Commons name and logos in connection to modified licences as it may be a trademark violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Stefan2: That's what I thought.
        
        @Jamesatkocatan: They don't have to. They can keep it under whatever license they want on their website and license it for Wikmedia Commons under a free license. We just need proof of a free license and the easy way is to get it from the source (the website). The hard way is that they keep it under whatever license on their website, and send WP:OTRS evidence that they are the copyright holder and want to license it under a free license on Wikimedia Commons. Note that in this scenario too anyone can use the picture for any purpose. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:07, 8 May 2016 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_May_6&oldid=1138521085"

NODES