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⚡ 14:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luscious Pink.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MiMi-NyC ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Seems to be shot professionally. Permission needed from photographer. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lacking any apparent use. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:09, 26 July 2022 (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.

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⚡ 14:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:M G George Muthoot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valueinvestorkerala ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Small, low res, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2022 (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.

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⚡ 10:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Telehealth - Blood Pressure Monitor.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Naivepanda ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Source website indicates "All rights reserved." I could find no evidence this image was ever freely licensed. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Many free-er options available at c:Category:Electronic sphygmomanometers. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to many free alternatives being readily available on Commons. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:10, 26 July 2022 (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.

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⚡ 10:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabrina Erdely.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BlueSalix ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Low quality image; replaced with slightly better image at File:Sabrina Erdely 10.25.12 (8145060491) (cropped).jpg on Commons and no longer used in article space. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with no obvious value due to quality. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2022 (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.

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: relisted on 2022 August 6. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:SGD 2 Polymer b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 5 Polymer f.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 5 Polymer b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 10 Polymer f.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 10 Polymer b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 50 Paper f.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 50 Paper b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 100 Paper f.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 100 Paper b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 1000 Paper f.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 1000 Paper b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SGD 10000 Paper b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: Defaulting to status quo, as there's a lot of disagreement about whether this is actually PD -FASTILY 05:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apple Macintosh Desktop.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chmod007 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Does this actually reach c:COM:TOO US? Otherwise it can be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible}} or any other PD template. Jonteemil (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonteemil, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable declaring that PD-ineligible. Most individual elements would possibly be fine, but as a whole? I suppose this would be mostly about the apple in the top-left corner, the trash icon, the finder/system/etc computer icon and the SysVersion icon. And as the source is unknown, the placement of the windows (and which windows to show) could be considered a creative element as well. It would be a thin copyright, but I don't think I'm personally going to tag it as ineligible. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The designs of the icons are very simple, using US standards. Below TOO for me but unknown what a court would rule.Jonteemil (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonteemil, for the icons individually you're likely right, but does the thing as a whole amount to something greater? Another question could be that of whether elements are utilitarian, I think a basic scrollbar for example arguably is. Maybe Clindberg would have some interesting thoughts on this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to think some of those icons would qualify for copyright. Maybe they appeared in an advertisement without copyright notice before 1989, and lost their copyright that way, though we'd have to show that, and perhaps a registration on the software may have kept copyright anyways. I would have to guess it's above the threshold, but remains fine for fair use, so can't see a reason to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl Lindberg: No one wants it deleted. The discussion is about whether or not the file is copyrightable.Jonteemil (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: "Maybe they appeared in an advertisement without copyright notice before 1989, and lost their copyright that way"

You mean like these: [1] [2] [3]? All of the elements in this screenshot are in these ads. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the only argument for PD, to me -- that was subject to the conditions in 17 USC 405, to keep copyright. There likely was a copyright registration of the software which may cover the icons, but the other condition for keeping copyright may be arguable that Apple did not do. It would only be the icons which are in those ads, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be bold and say keep as PD I don't see the elements as anything beyond utilitarian, ergo, they don't have copyright for a screenshot any more than the headlights of a car or a wiring setup. However, I'm willing to be swayed. Buffs (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Amended: icons in this image are PD as they lost copyright via their use in multiple advertisements as annotated above. The software itself probably retains copyright as a whole, but not these images. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Buffs, I also found a bunch of ads at https://www.cnet.com/pictures/the-early-years-of-apple-ads-pictures/. But I can't find the "computer" icon. (trash and sysversion are in the 1984 Macintosh Spread #2 ad) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see that it was ever registered as copyrighted. As it would be a work published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered, I don't see that passing copyright and it's PD regardless of functionality. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No doubt the software was registered for copyright. You don't have to register copyright for every single illustration in your book for them to be copyrighted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, but misleading. At least 3 people here feel it wouldn't meet the TOO. Additionally, one could argue de minimis as they are simply icons, and the GUI is what is being illustrated. FWIW, I don't see a copyright registry for the software. While it might have existed at the time, if it did, it appears to have lapsed and there is no record of it at the copyright office. At the time, software copyright was a bit of a nebulous concept. Buffs (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buffs: What do you mean with keep? This is not a delete or keep situation, more like a relicense-as-free or remain-non-free situation.Jonteemil (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  rephrased Buffs (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Buffs, the icons aren't utilitarian, they serve no function in and of themselves. (unlike a scrollbar or window border) They could be replaced with words, for example. Whether they are sufficiently detailed to be eligible for copyright protection in the US is another matter, but if Clindberg says "yes" I'm going with that and say we should keep this as fair use. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed they are utilitarian. A folder or an image of a computer lets you know what clicking it will do. It is no different than an arrow or a bar. That's not to say an icon CANNOT attain copyright, merely "not these". Buffs (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Buffs, arrows and bars can also be eligible for copyright depending on their detail. A scrollbar or window border can't be replaced by words but arrows and icons can. Their function is merely to convey information. Scrollbars and window borders can also be eligible for copyright if sufficiently detailed, but their basic form is utilitarian. See this essay for some examples.
  What you are arguing is that these icons are below the threshold of originality for copyright. I initially thought that could be the case, but Clindberg said no and I trust Clindberg's judgment on this subject. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why don't you just let me make my own arguments instead, k? I never argued the icons were below TOO. I said they were utilitarian (which is a completely different argument). A car, for example, cannot be copyrighted because it is a utilitarian object. The same applies to a lightbulb, a headlight, or even a screwdriver. They easily pass the "Sweat of the brow" and "creative element" threshold, but still aren't eligible for copyright because they are utilitarian in nature. If your argument is "because I agree with Clindberg", I can't argue against that.

  • "arrows and bars can also be eligible for copyright depending on their detail"^{[citation needed]} I'll save you some time: no they can't. If you disagree, show us an example.
  • "Scrollbars and window borders can also be eligible for copyright if sufficiently detailed"^{[citation needed]} Again, no they can't. If you disagree, show us an example.
  • "their basic form is utilitarian", which is my point. Your argument that a scroll bar or window is utilitarian because they have a function is the same reason I'm saying that an icon has the exact same parameters and works in the same way.

  Please don't conflate separate points (especially points I didn't make). Buffs (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Buffs, Why don't you just let me make my own arguments instead, k? I never argued the icons were below TOO. I said they were utilitarian (which is a completely different argument). K, if you insist. In that case you're just plain wrong.
  

  • I'll save you some time: no they can't. If you disagree, show us an example. VA0000021022, VAu001442705, VA0000677356, VA0000019446, VAu000302328, VAu000012646, VAu000415048, VA0001077782
  • Again, no they can't. If you disagree, show us an example. 1. Draw a cool snake 2. Use it as a scrollbar
  • same reason I'm saying that an icon has the exact same parameters and works in the same way Icons merely convey information, they are not functional. The only possible argument for them not being copyrightable is when they don't exceed the threshold of originality. (or the creator lives in Somalia)

  — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Can you please specify what VA0000021022, etc are?
  2. Icons are indeed functional. You click them and something happens. Buffs (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     1. Registration numbers.
     2. No. You describe a button. You can't copyright the concept of a button, you can't copyright most physical button shapes (like round, square, triangle, etc), but you certainly can copyright the picture you stick on the button. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     All the copyrights you mention are something else, not a simple directional arrow

     • VAu001442705 - "arrow and 3 Other Unpublished Works" Appears to be a collection of works which INCLUDES something described as "arrow", but offers no actual description
     • VA0000677356 - Art design for fabric named arrow
     • VA0000019446 - Baby under construction : [no.] 350321; Description: Col. print ; iron-on transfer. Notes: Stylized arrow pointing downward, decorative lettering.
     • VAu000302328 - Southwest stylized arrow design collection--12 designs. Metal sculptures.
     • VA0000021022 - print of a stylized arrow in flight
     • VAu000012646 - Sculpture. 2 stylized arrow shapes pointing in opposite directions.
     • VAu000415048 - Arrow & line. Rug. Includes design drawing.
     • VA0001077782 - Decorative arrow with directionals. Weathervane.

     All you did was simply search the word "arrow" without regard for what we were talking about (a simple directional arrow) and conflate it with a half dozen other things and claim equivalence when it's crystal clear they are not; you attempted to blast a half dozen examples just because they contained the word "arrow" in their title or description to include sculptures, rugs, and (apparently) medical journals. Lastly, you attempted to use jargon/ID numbers without a link that was readily accessible. You made it unnecessarily difficult and intentionally/negligently misrepresented your evidence as if it supported your conclusion...which it doesn't. By your logic, your are literally conflating this or this or this or this as equivalent with this

     I'm quite sure I understand the use of the word "icon" and what it functionally is. Ergo, an icon, by definition as being an icon, is a functional portion of a GUI and cannot attain copyright as it is. Now, the design chosen may be something that CAN attain copyright. As stated above in multiple ways, I don't see these as anything beyond a pictorial representation of what the icon does/accesses (i.e. functional). Furthermore, it's a moot point as those elements lost copyright with the aforementioned ads. Buffs (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────┘
I never said you could copyright [4] in the US. (in the UK or Australia, perhaps)
I said depending on detail and your answer was an unconditional no. Actually finding an example isn't necessarily easy, just because detailed decorative arrows can be copyrighted doesn't mean anyone has to do it. A painting of a purple elephant wearing a grey tuxedo would also be eligible for copyright, but good luck finding an example to prove it.
Arrows like c:File:Greek arrow right.png or those on [5] are likely eligible for copyright. I have no idea why you would think such images (or [6]) would automatically be ineligible for copyright protection because they are arrows. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You're (intentionally?) misreading what I wrote. Of course those are eligible for copyright (they are copyrighted), but they aren't what we are talking about and you know it. Tossing those in isn't what we're talking about. Buffs (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Drawings are basically never utilitarian -- that is generally something physical that people can use directly. U.S. copyright law states: as A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. copyright.gov further states: Examples are clothing, furniture, machinery, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. Drawings are pictorial works, and are not utilitarian. There is a threshold of originality on them, but that is the only thing you can argue with drawings being inherently PD. One exception can be components of an alphabetic or numbering system -- those glyphs are generally not considered copyrightable. That has even held true for a made-up alphabet for a made-up language in series of computer games.[7] But pictorial icons have no phonetic or numeric meaning. There is some language which prevents systems or methods of operation from being protected by copyright, as discussed in the PDF linked there, but pictorial elements seem beyond that for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But these are NOT just drawings. You click them to activate something. Like a cursor, they are primarily utilitarian. Buffs (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can copyright some cursors too. The simplest cursor is just a dot, you can't copyright that. A simple arrow without any depth effect etc. would generally be covered by common symbols, thus not eligible for copyright. But take for example the bloody severed hand cursor from Carmageddon? Definitely copyrightable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm clearly referring to the Mac cursor. In any case, it appears to be a moot point as those icons were used in ads listed above and lost their copyright. Buffs (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No you weren't. And "You click them to activate something." = button. And pictures don't become ineligible for copyright because they are stuck on buttons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are (intentionally?) jumping back and forth between cursors and icons. The two are not synonymous in function. Likewise, an icon vs button is a distinction without a difference in the GUI world as an icon has both a function and an image. The question is whether an icon can attain copyright. I think it's questionable whether it can. As I said before, this is a moot point. The images in question lost copyright a few decades ago. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Likewise, an icon vs button is a distinction without a difference in the GUI world as an icon has both a function and an image."
  No it doesn't. Icons (in this context) are buttons, and buttons can exist without any label/image at all. The icon/label only conveys information (see US law as quoted by Carl Lindberg) about what the button does.
  The question is whether an icon can attain copyright. Tell me with a straight face that everything on [8] is ineligible for copyright. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as fair use. The "icons are functional" argument is obviously incorrect. Buttons are functional, whatever you print on the buttons conveys information. When it comes to the threshold of originality I defer to Clindberg, and Clindberg says "I'd have to think some of those icons would qualify for copyright". Some (but possibly not all) may have lost their copyright due to appearances in ads, but the software itself presumably was copyrighted, so I'm not sure what that means in the end. Way too much uncertainty here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:57, 28 July 2022 (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.

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: relisted on 2022 July 31. ✗plicit 08:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheet from '5 Loose Leaf Notebook Drawings' by Richard Tuttle.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.