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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twilight books.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Taking a picture of a book on a table does not then transfer the copyright of the cover art to the photographer... Cirt (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete contains derivative material from a copyright work (the book design).-Blargh29 (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this picture shouldn't be deleted and is important for the two articles it is included in because:

• It represents the long awaited release of the British paperback editions (they are much cheaper than the hardback ones and easy to buy)
• The image isn't a very high resolution
• Image is self-made and therefore not an impeachment of the original artwork/design.
• Image is meant to be solely educational and informative
• Image may also contribute to the advertising of the British paperbacks

Additionally:

• No free equivalent exists that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
• The image is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
• The image is only used twice and can possibly avoid piracy of the books
• The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.
• The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.
• The image is used in the article(s) wiki-linked in the section title.
• The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which are the book series itself and the film which is based on the second book in the series
• The image is used in the article namespace.

For further confusion, I have changed the copyright tag on the image page. Any opinions? Thanks Mo HH92 ^Talk 08:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - I've also added a few more reasons on the image page. Thanks. Mo HH92 ^Talk 08:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete low quality, non-free derivative. The claim that it is "self-made" and somehow makes it okay, is, of course, ridiculous. Taking a picture of it does not change the copyright. It seems like the poster just copy/pasted the list of reasons for non-free use with little actual examination of the real issues.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Because of the odd non-free license. However, the user doesn't claim that the books are theirs, just the picture is. And because the picture is such a poor resolution, using "Taking a picture of a book on a table does not then transfer the copyright of the cover art to the photographer" as a rationale for deletion isn't really fair. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, the deletion just because of that isn't fair. I have made numerous valid points on the image's page and none of them are being discussed. I have also changed the copyright status. What else do you need?Mo HH92 ^Talk 12:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The books *are* copyrighted. Once again I repeat: I have changed the copyright status to the correct one. Could you please take further consideration to the reasons I have mentioned here and the image's main page rather than just deleting it?Mo HH92 ^Talk 12:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to use a copyrighted file, we'd use something more along these lines. But we won't, seeing that a copyrighted image only to demonstrate the covers, won't be needed, and is entirely unnecessary ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But I'm not demonstrating the covers. I'm just demonstrating the British paperback edition. There's no need to delete the image, please. I have listed so many reasons to prove my point. It will be unfair to delete it just because you think it is "unnecessary" since the picture qualifies over the image guidelines and I have already changed the copyright status. And please take consideration for the points I have mentioned in the main image page. Thanks.Mo HH92 ^Talk 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, here are some flaws I've found with that...

~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 05:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The books are under copyright of course but the picture is self-made by me to illustrate the Twilight books. I'm not spamming anything. And I'm really sorry about the previous lisence. I was not aware of it so I just thought I was choosing the right one. But the lisence has been changed. There's nothing wrong with image.

BTW, I found another picture like this: File:DiscworldShelf.png But, why delete my picture since I have speicified so many reasons. I'm not an image expert and once again, I apologise if I've caused any confusion. Thanks. Mo HH92 ^Talk 09:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: clearly fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because there is already a non-free image of the hardback and the books in this image is so similar in design, that it adds nothing extra to the article, and because of this also fails WP:NFCC#8 as the readers understanding of the article will not be detrimentally affected by removing this image. If it was the only image available for the article there might be some justification but otherwise no. ww2censor (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, deleting the picture just because there are already non-free hardback books image isn't fair at all. And saying that it should be deleted because if deleted the understanding of the article won't be affected isn't also fair. I have proved why the image is important on the main page. Could you consider those points as well, please? Mo HH92 ^Talk 18:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Fairness has nothing to do with any reasoning to keep a non-free image. There is a policy and, Mo HH92, you may need to refresh yourself with all 10 of the WP:NFCC requirements which must be met for non-free images to be kept. For now this image fails at least two of them. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:41, 5 December 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KALCA Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• OR, corporate logo, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KB Prishtina.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• FC logo, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KCK crest.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• school crest, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KCR Old Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• OR, corporate logo, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breaking-dawn-de.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• picture of books - wouldn't meet de minimis for book cover Skier Dude (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete contains derivative material from a copyright work (the book design).-Blargh29 (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated the image page and the copyright status. I'm sorry for the confusion.Mo HH92 ^Talk 08:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non free book image being used when there already is a good non-free image in the article fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Different edition images are unnecessary when this can be explained in prose and there is no discussion about the image that could justify its use. ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:41, 5 December 2009 (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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephenie meyer books.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• picture of books - wouldn't meet de minimis for book cover Skier Dude (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete contains derivative material from a copyright work (the book design).-Blargh29 (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated the image page and the copyright status. I'm sorry for the confusion.Mo HH92 ^Talk 08:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non free book image being used in a biography clearly fails WP:NFC#Images #1 and WP:NFCC#8. Besiides which there is no discussion about the image that could justify its use. ww2censor (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:41, 5 December 2009 (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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KLDK-logo -use.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• FC logo, no source; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually get involved in these discussions, but I (along with a little input from other concerned parties) created this logo for the radio station and I thought that is what is reflected on its copyright page. How do I need to improve it? EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KMPL01.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be scan from printed image; no source, no metadata Skier Dude (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KOBITA AUBONI AUNARJO VUMIKA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• OR, appears to be text of a poem Skier Dude (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Summary states "corporate headshot", which means the uploader wouldn't be the (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaada-recordings.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• corporate logo, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KYMB LOGO jpg contrast.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• corporate logo, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo in question is owned by KYMB which the wikipedia site is about KYMB, the TV station. The page creator is KYMB licensed under Cocola Broadcasting Companies, LLC. We are the creator, owner and therefore permitted to use the logo as the call letters represent the TV Station. KJEO also is owned by Cocola Broadcasting and uses a similar style logo. KYMB and KJEO logo design were commissioned in house ten years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingoffreetv (talk • contribs) 07:15, 9 December 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KUTS 6.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• school logo, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kafi Benz - 83d40m - ccc newsletter 2004.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• summary states "scan of an image of Kafi Benz published in the 2004 newsletter of the MPO West Central Florida Chairs Coordinating Committee" - thus user is not (c) holder; also replaceable fair use as subject is still living Skier Dude (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publications of the U.S. government are not copyright. This is a publication produced with public funds by the governmental agency issuing it and carries no copyright. The image should be retained. Please let me know if you need more details. ---- 83d40m (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image may be {{PD-USGov}} or maybe {{PD-USGov-DOT}}. In any event, PD-Self is not appropriate. If the article is online, that would help to determine the more specific template. If it is Gov... then the replaceable fair use, naturally, wouldn't apply. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image was submitted voluntarily by the subject (a governmental appointee) to a branch of that government agency for publication in a publicly available document issued by the government agency, a metropolitan planning organization.

The summary description at the image was intended to be clear about the nature of the source and declared that it was from a public document:

Category:Kafi Benz scan of an image of Kafi Benz published in the 2004 newsletter of the MPO West Central Florida Chairs Coordinating Committee - Metropolitan Planning Organizations and their committees are federally-mandated governmental activities and the newsletter is a public document. Text accompanying this image in response to the question, What are your regional transportation priority issues? is, Improving Roadway Design - Protection of the environment and air quality with travel safety and a minimum of delay are the most important issues. True roundabouts would help accomplish this, establishing a regional priority of protecting air quality, lowering mortality in accidents, protecting pedestrians and cyclists, calming traffic, saving fuel, and adding beauty to intersections that are becoming polluting eyesores. Kafi Benz, Member of Sarasota-Manatee MPO Citizen Advisory Committee and Community Leader

the link and information you have requested is,

http://www.regionaltransportation.org/News_files/news04.pdf

the copy in the pdf of the newsletter broadcast on the internet is,

WHAT IS THE CCC? The Chairs Coordinating Committee (CCC) of west central Florida is made up of MPO officials from Pasco, Hernando, Hillsborough, Sarasota/Manatee, Polk and Pinellas counties. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Secretaries for Districts 1 and 7, the Florida Turnpike Enterprise, Citrus County and the Regional Planning Councils are represented as non-voting members. The CCC meets quarterly to develop regional transportation solutions to a variety of transportation problems. Topics include road construction priorities, traffic congestion management, air quality, mass transit, goods movement, land use, pedestrian and bicycle issues, trails, etc. The CCC develops funding priorities and oversees the conflict resolution process. For more information and a complete list of members visit the website at ccctransportation.org

What are your regional transportation priority issues? We posed this question to citizens throughout Florida’s eight-county, west central region. Their responses touched on a variety of transportation issues.

Some respondents cited a need to improve the regional transportation infrastructure through congestion mitigation, roadway building or widening, for example. Others called for region wide coordination or expansion of existing MPO/TPO networks and programs, such as trails or transit. All responses collected will be used as input to plan a safe and efficient transportation system that provides mobility options and enhances economic development.

We hope that these ideas will make you think about your own regional transportation priorities. Better still - go one more step and communicate your ideas to your local MPO or to the CCC. Contact information is on page 4.

On page two, the response of the subject is,

(image) Improving Roadway Design - Protection of the environment and air quality with travel safety and a minimum of delay are the most important issues. True roundabouts would help accomplish this, establishing a regional priority of protecting air quality, lowering mortality in accidents, protecting pedestrians and cyclists, calming traffic, saving fuel, and adding beauty to intersections that are becoming polluting eyesores. 'Kafi Benz, Sarasota, Member of Sarasota/Manatee MPO Citizen Advisory Committee and Community Leader.

Perhaps the licensing citation should be different from what was used. It is a scan produced by this editor - making the upload – and considered own work since it was a scan of a public document that had no copyright. The only relevant copyright issue was considered that of the editor who created the new image.

That is the format chosen and displayed.

Do not know how to change the citation, nor what format would satisfy the editor who made the complaint.

Direction is requested regarding those changes, if necessary – please advise how and with what the license should be replaced. Never have had to make such a change and am quite unsure what would be preferred and how to effect a change in license after the upload of the image has been completed. ---- 83d40m (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from that, then, that the proper template would be {{PD-USGov-DOT}} - and that the source [1] should be added to the image page. Looking for additional 'eyes' to see if there's a better licensing 'fit' for this. Skier Dude (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask as well whether creating an image from a scan of a public document without copyright, would enable the author of the scan to give a license for a work created by editing, to isolate the image for publication in Wikipedia, then it could remain as it is. The image was not captured from a file contained in the original pdf document. Curiously, can it be considered as a second generation, as taking a photograph of anything else would make the new author the creator of a new image, and able to grant a license? ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced by the arguments to keep, certainly not pd-self but it doesnt appear to be the work of the federal government either, not sure why you think it has no copyright the newsletter is copyrighted on publication it doesnt actually have to appear. The Chairs Co-ordinating Committee doesnt think it is pd-gov either as their website says Chairs Coordinating Committee - All Rights Reserved. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be reasons for a notice of all rights reserved for the site that have nothing to do with this issue. This issue has to do with a newsletter of a governmental organization that is mailed to recipients within the region, the state, and the country. That newsletter is a public document that happens to be available on the web site. The newsletter bears no copyright because it is a public document published by a governmental agency. MPOs are federally mandated organizations whose employees are government employees and whose members either are governmental office holders or representatives appointed by the regional and local governments involved. Their publications, minutes, maps, e-mails, etc. are public documents. Public documents are published all the time -- that bear no copyright -- becaues taxpayers pay for the publications, so publication alone does not create a copyright automatically.

Granted, there are few exceptions, but this is one. At public domain you will find, Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries.[4] In the United States, when copyrighted material is enacted into the law, it enters the public domain. Thus, the building codes, when enacted, are in the public domain.[5] They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well. "It is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work."[6] (Copyright Office Basics: Publications Incorporating U.S. Government Works)

As a matter of fact, at the web site you are citing -- on the contact page -- is the warning that even e-mails to them and the addresses of the senders become public documents -- see http://www.regionaltransportation.org/FlLawEmail.htm

Copyright protects the right of the author to the work, if the government is the author, as here, there is no copyright. ---- 83d40m (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point but the link to emails statement actually says E-mail addresses are public records under Florida law not federal law. If they were part of the US government wouldnt it say so. MilborneOne (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to presume that you intend to assert that if this item is in the public domain because it is published by a government agency that might be the Florida government rather than the federal government, the public domain publication would carry a copyright? ----83d40m (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (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 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.

Deleted, not simple enough to be ineligible for copyright. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaguluhan Music Festival Logo.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• corporate (music festival) logo, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image falls below the threshold of originality, and would be properly licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}, which I just did. --Blargh29 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which doesn't address the question of being "official" - it's being presented as the official logo, if it's not that, there's no need to be putting user-created art posing as the official logo. Skier Dude (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not convinced this qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}; this is not a typeface but an original design that uses letters. In any case, a source is still needed per WP:Verifiability. Chick Bowen 04:49, 4 January 2010 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Summary = "Official Mascot of BAKA..." no link to artist/(c) holder and uploader Skier Dude (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KangasFC Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• FC logo, no source; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kappa xi omega crest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• OR; Fraternity logo, no source/ no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Duddy punches Bonsante.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is sourced to fightkings.com and references an OTRS record that does not refer to this website. Exif status that the image is (c) 2007 by Ed Mulholland-US PRESSWIRE. I think this is a copyrighted press image that is not free Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freddie Mercury 1986.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• warrior4321 04:01, 27 November 2009 (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 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Uploader created article copy/pasted from http://ptjournal.apta.org/cgi/content/full/82/9/898 and other sources, per its talk; Image itself is reflective of a professional posed shot one would see in a magazine or promo materials; claims that it is created by the uploader seem very dubious, particularly when other images this SPA account uploaded have already been shown to be copyvio. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rehabilitation robot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Same as with the previous one. Uploader created article copy/pasted from http://ptjournal.apta.org/cgi/content/full/82/9/898 and other sources, per its talk; Image itself is reflective of a professional posed shot one would see in a magazine or promo materials; claims that it is created by the uploader seem very dubious. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:24, 27 November 2009 (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 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 as G4 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: Recreating by same editor of previously deleted image at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 11#Postage stamp on Jain Acharya Tulsi.jpg. The same issues apply: Indian postage stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 1988 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also the fair use rationale is incomplete and shows no purpose. ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:41, 5 December 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Watermarked as "Princeton University" but licensed as PD-Self Skier Dude (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patrijarh Gavrilo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I doubt that User:Happyman22 is the author of this old photo. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2009 (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 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.

Kept as non-free logo. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Uploader both claims that the image's availability on the web indicates lack of copyright, that they hold the copyright. Danger (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identical image was re-uploaded following previous deletion, it had been uploaded as self made by Jens Martin and was deleted on 17 November under F4 Lack of licensing information. Image has now been sourced to http://www.mounted-games.org with the statement "This image has no copyright, it is free for use on all Mounted Games websites." which does not agree with http://www.mounted-games.org/site/copyright.htm which has the statement "Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged." so not self made and not free enough for wikipedia. Should really be Template:non-free logo so I have changed this on the page. Still needs uploader to create an acceptable non-free use rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:45, 11 December 2009 (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.