"This file is in the public domain, because it was found on the world wide web." Blatant copyright infringement. —Remember the dot(talk) 01:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was
Delete - it was, however, the funniest fucking thing. The image actually is PD-USGOV, but it's already on commons, so I swap'd 'em and speedied. WilyD 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This file is in the public domain, because it was found on the world wide web." Blatant copyright infringement. —Remember the dot(talk) 01:15, 19 May 2008 (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 debate was
Keep - I'm personally a bit concerned about the liberal usage of fair use on the Topps card pages, but using the card to illustrate the brand of card is within the bounds of fair use. WilyD 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same problems as Image:1951 Topps Red Backs Phil Rizzuto.jpg. Unfortunately, this is not an illustration of the product in question (i.e. the specific baseball card) but is being used merely as a stock photo. It is quite possible for someone to make up a fictional card with the design to put on the page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that will not work since creating a fictional card would violate Topps copyright. There is no way to show what the cards look like without showing an example of one of the cards, as it is not feasible to reproduce every singe card. It is like with a newspaper or magazine, showing a representative sample. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would creating a fictional card violate the Topps copyright, at least in a way that's probably worse than using an actual card does? I mean, we use fictional uniforms for sports teams and there doesn't seem to be a copyright concern. Besides, looking at unacceptable use 7, it describes "A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds" but it would seem strange to allow its use to illustrate the design of the card itself, even it cannot illustrate the players on the card. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The design is copyrighted. As for your example, that is apples and oranges. The article about a player is not about the card, so it would make no sense to have a card illustrate that article. Having a card from a set illustrate an article about the set does make sense. Think about it and it is clear. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2008 (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.
Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Kellyhi! 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, users only edits, and two image uploads appear to be all to treat this like a social network. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was
Delete. Indeed, state governments can and do own copyrights. WilyD 20:27, 13 June 2008 (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.
Orphaned image. The quality is not good enough for it to be used in Coat of arms, and there seems to be no other article in which this could be used. –Black Falcon(Talk) 05:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be public domain, but is a concatenation of likely copyrighted images for which no permission for derivative works appears to exist. --Kinut/c 07:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfree image has week rationale for useage. A person's signature does not add substantial encyclopedic content to the article. It's not necessary to understand the subject. There's no discussion of the signature. Also, there's conceivable a privacy issue of publishing a signature. Rob (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
