Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2009 January 4

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. delete copyright violation on flickr. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Karolína Kurková.jpeg

Flickr page from where the image came has the Noncommercial tag present. Tabercil (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyright violation. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:56, 30 January 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I9 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the image uploaded came from a Disney Channel fansite, I also found the original without the fansite's tag on the website Disney uses to give copyrighted material to "qualified domestic media professionals only." You HAVE to be a member of the press and have a membership there to even GET the pictures. It's their way of knowing who exactly is using the pictures. Here is the closest I could get to getting the picture to show up because I have no membership there and have no reason to have a membership there. Purplewowies (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly a copyvio. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 5 January 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 debate was: Delete. Andrew c ^[talk] 01:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploader scanned the image but is not likely to be the copyright holder. Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 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 debate was: delete.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploader claims "own work"/"I am the copyright holder", when clearly it is an advertising image, and the copyright very likely belongs to the company/product owner in question. Guliolopez (talk) 21:55, 4 January 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.