Uploaded by Misskandarking (notify | contribs). No source (ImageShack is not a source), bloody false GFDL-no-dislcaimers licensing, unused Hbdragon88 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a user-made image. Should have given the user a little time to modify the licencing, or just used {{GFDL-presumed}} as has already been put on some other images by the user. └OzLawyer / talk┐ 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a user-made image. Should have given the user a little time to modify the licencing, or just used {{GFDL-presumed}} as has already been put on some other images by the user. └OzLawyer / talk┐ 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a user-made image. Should have given the user a little time to modify the licencing, or just used {{GFDL-presumed}} as has already been put on some other images by the user. └OzLawyer / talk┐ 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by BCKILLa (notify | contribs). Ok. This image is a logo. I'm calling all of its usages under fair use criteria to be invalid. It is using a logo to identify what is from what series of a work of fiction. To me this conjures up a thought like putting a Microsoft Windows logo on every piece of software written to run on it so you can identify it by picture. It is as such, a copyvio. The logo does not contribute signifigantly to any article. The only article I could honestly see it at is Dragon Ball GT, but its already got a different image. Its usage is actually part of a template system, in the template {{appears in:DBGT}} Fair use images are not ment to be used in templates. All instances are either showing an example of the usage of the template, or the template itself. Last, don't know who the copyright holder is. There is no valid use for this copyrighted image.- Kevin_b_er 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image marks that a character appears in Dragon Ball GT, which in combination with the other three images for Dragon Ball, tells if this character appeared in Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT, and/or the Dragon Ball Movies. It's easier to have the images say weather or not the character is in that series rather than typing it out. The images are used on every article on Dragon Ball characters, and are user made. For an example see Son Goku (Dragon Ball) and look to the right of the page in the information box. Takuthehedgehog 01:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other 3 images appear to copyright violations too. They appear to contain the common element made to intentionally look like the objects in this picture. Kevin_b_er 06:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other three other images are too generic and not something specific like a logo. A valid copyright claim on the likeless of a cirlce with a star in it cannot be resonably claimed in the first place. I doubt they are copyright violations. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This logo is my own work and has been mislabled as a logo just because it looks simlar to the dragon ball gt logo. Sorry for any confusion, I personally did not put the lable tag on the image (although I seem to have erroneously called the image a logo), and originally released the image to public domain as I have the other three related icons. I thought it was obvious that this was not the official logo, but I was mistaken. BCKILLa 05:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a copyright violation. Plain and simple. The fact that it was designed to look similar to the logo means you made a derivative work. Its still covered by copyright. Wether you use it for 'markers' or not. You cannot use copyrighted logos, or someone's custom remaking of one in articles like that. Kevin_b_er 06:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image is too similar, intentionally so, to the original logo. The other three images mentioned are too generic and not something specific like a logo. A valid copyright claim on the likeness of a circle with a star in it cannot be reasonably claimed in the first place. I doubt they are copyright violations. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by EnDai (notify | contribs). CV. The uploader wanted to be smart, and added a "logo" fair use license to a picture of a footballer in action. Panarjedde 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by EnDai (notify | contribs). CV. The uploader wanted to be smart, and added a "logo" fair use license to a picture of a footballer in action. Panarjedde 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by EnDai (notify | contribs). CV. The uploader wanted to be smart, and added a "sport poster" fair use license to a picture of a footballer in action. Panarjedde 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg because I've been thinking of putting it in my gallery and because it should be on the bird category page. I put it on the category page somehow, but I don't remember how. The photo is being used. It's for my gallery, for the bird category page and the bird artice. It's informative. I've been thinking of uploading other pictures of that bird as well, although I haven't taken them yet. I think I'll put the picture in my gallery right now. --Chuck Marean 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Image:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg is not orphaned. It's on Bird images, Cacatuidae, Umbrella Cockatoo, Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Birds , & User:Chuck Marean/gallery page one. And it used to be on the Birds article too an maybe still ought to be. This photo illustrates the sharp, powerful jaws and strong cage of the Umbrella Cockatoo as well as its 92% tame personality. People new to cockatoos and other kinds of parrots seem to think the birds can be carried on the shoulder. However, that is not a good idea because the creatures are sometimes in a bad mood. The image should be kept and used. -- Chuck Marean 09:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Palffy (notify | contribs). CV. Claimed promotional, but the reference given is not enough to gather this information Panarjedde 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [1], the photo is taken from a promotional guide to their new stadium, from the club's official website. --Palffy 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete - the link to the page showing where the image was taken from has been provided only now by the uploader and, at the time of writing this message, it is not yet present in the image page. Furthermore, I can't read Russian, so I can't check if the image actually comes from a press kit or is an advertisement. If the page showed is part of a promotional portfolio, clearly stating that the image and the text are for use of the press, then I clearly accept the image, otherwise I can't do anything else than remarking that the image is not promotional and must be deleted because it is a CV.--Panarjedde 20:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
..which is probably why you of all people, should not question my uploads. Actually, I don't need to provide the exact link to where the image was taken (because this is the case with hundreds of other photos out there) as long as the domain is specified. In fact, at the bottom of this particular official club page, it states "При использовании материалов сайта ссылка на www.fcmetalurg.com обязательна" ("When using materials from the site, a link to www.fcmetalurg.com is required"). As a sidenote, perhaps the fact that you are unable to find this image or learn about its "exact" copyright designation because you are not qualified to do it, should give you a hint that you should go elsewhere. --Palffy 20:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you did actually know anything about copyrights, instead of posting your ignorant response, you would have changed it to {{Attribution}}, which is the proper designation. --Palffy 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you did know anything about copyrights, instead of posting your ignorant response, you would have noticed that the text you translated from Russian (we still have not an English statement from the source) does not states that commercial use is allowed. Try again.--Panarjedde 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the text I translated says nothing about whether commercial use is allowed, but all uses are allowed as long as they're sourced. Take a guess as to why there isn't an English statement from the source? Oh yea, because the site is tailored to Ukrainian+Russian speakers. Additionally, I won't be adding anything else to the images listed below--whatever the case is, I'm sure there might be a more appropriate tag to add to those images, as they're clearing releasing copyrights for personal use, and hopefully others and the admins examining the case will list the appropriate tag. As for your attitude towards me, if you keep purposefully stalking my edits as you have and continuing your arrogant behavior, I will do my utmost to ban you from WP. I personally believe you should have been gone from WP a long time ago (and I know you haven't changed, you're still the same _____--fill in your own swear word). --Palffy 02:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"but all uses are allowed as long as they're sourced" Care to give any reference, or everyone on Earth should trust you? I also suggest to find the proper tag for an image before having it listed for deleting, even better if before uploading.--Panarjedde 12:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"When using materials from the site, a link to www.fcmetalurg.com is required" seems to clearly imply that use of the materials is allowed. "Commercial use", being a use, would therefore be allowed. └OzLawyer / talk┐ 21:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best, its a promo image. 'use' does indicate a permission for redistribution of modifications. It should not be {{Attribution}}. --Kevin_b_er 15:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Lionel patrick (notify | contribs). Tagged as promotional, but sonymusic.com is not a source for promotional material. Terms of use says: "Material on this website is made available solely for your personal, non-commercial use and may not be copied, reproduced, republished, modified, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way,..." ). Also, violates WP:FUC#1 and goes directly against #8 in Wikipedia:Fair use#Conterexamples.- Abu Badali 15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed copyright tag to appropriate one. --Palffy 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The uploader changed the promotional tag into "CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat" with a non-commercial requirements, which is clearly CV here on Wikipedia (see the tag boilerplate itself)--Panarjedde 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed copyright tag to appropriate one. --Palffy 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The uploader changed the promotional tag into "CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat" with a non-commercial requirements, which is clearly CV here on Wikipedia (see the tag boilerplate itself)--Panarjedde 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed copyright tag to appropriate one. --Palffy 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The uploader changed the promotional tag into "CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat" with a non-commercial requirements, which is clearly CV here on Wikipedia (see the tag boilerplate itself)--Panarjedde 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed copyright tag to appropriate one. --Palffy 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The uploader changed the promotional tag into "CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat" with a non-commercial requirements, which is clearly CV here on Wikipedia (see the tag boilerplate itself)--Panarjedde 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed copyright tag to appropriate one. --Palffy 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The uploader changed the promotional tag into "CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat" with a non-commercial requirements, which is clearly CV here on Wikipedia (see the tag boilerplate itself)--Panarjedde 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
