Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 22

: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 w/out prejudice to restoration if the "odd" (c) claims can be resolved. Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned, possibly unfree file. Source of image appears to have been UC Riverside, California Museum of photography. Per licensing page ..."In addition, UCR/CMP claims limited rights and administers the usage of imagery from its other online collections, including: Keystone Mast Collection,"..."All requests for permission to publish reproductions must be submitted in writing to the Curator of Museum Collections.". Date of the photo on the source page is unlisted, and no other source has been specified or suggested to verify the 1900 date is correct. Optigan13 (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

:Although the date is not clear, the Keystone View Company went out of business in 1963. There is no copyright notice, thus the image is in the public domain per {{tl|PD-pre1978}} at the very least. In my opinion this looks like a bogus copyright claim by UC Riverside (although to be fair, part of their legal statement subtly implies that they aren't even claiming copyright per say--just some "right" to control reproduction, which is highly dubious). IronGargoyle (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

: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.

: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: kept license & FuR updated. Skier Dude (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any reason to believe the uploader's claim that the organisation has given permission? And there's no FUR in case they haven't. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

:FUR now added --Cazmaraline (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

: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.

: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 {{admin|Skier Dude}} AnomieBOT⚡ 05:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any reason to believe the uploader's claim that the organisation has given permission? And there's no FUR in case they haven't. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

: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: keep. File is eligible for {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. — ξ^xplicit 06:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Much too complex to be assumed PD. J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, I uploaded this logo with a fair use rational, but user User:Emarsee removed it. Restoring fair use rational. --Svgalbertian (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree, there's nothing to show that this logo is too complicated. All I see is an blue and orange rectangle and with the text A and CHANNEL.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Emarsee, it's public domain as it's not original enough as typeface and simple geometric shapes can not be copyrighted. See User:Elcobbola/Copyright, Template talk:PD-textlogo, Commons:Template talk:PD-textlogo/en, Threshold of originality, Copyright#Typefaces and WP:Public domain#Fonts for info. Powergate92Talk 00:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

: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.