its not un-used I have it in my user-interface, as an edit toolbar button. I also know a few users who have copied my monobook and they too use it. βcommand00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image come from a video uploaded to YouTube. This is a copyright violation since the company that owns the videos copyirght has never given permission for their material to be hosted on YouTube and has frequently had their videos taken down. I have suggested to the uploader that they can rent or buy the DVD (since the event has been released twice on DVD) and take a screen cap of the same moment, since that would be allowed. TJSpyke07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image come from a video uploaded to YouTube. This is a copyright violation since the company that owns the videos copyirght has never given permission for their material to be hosted on YouTube and has frequently had their videos taken down. I have suggested to the uploader that they can rent or buy the DVD (since the event has been released twice on DVD) and take a screen cap of the same moment, since that would be allowed. TJSpyke07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic image uploaded exclusively to act as a vehicle for an image summary that advertises the uploader's business. Mayalld (talk) 10:56, 3 January 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.
Keep - This is a photograph I took myself, on April 11, 2003, at 5:20 PM, EST. It stands on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. How is a self-created photo copyrighted? Do you want the full uncropped photo version of the statue, or would you like to travel to Ottawa to see it yourself? Flibirigit (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it was created prior to 1923 or the creator died more than 50 years ago, the statue is copyrighted. This means that you cannot release a free photograph of it-- see derivative work. Do you have more information about the sculpture that would prove it is free?Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am no expert in copyright law, but per Canadian copyright law, this does not appear to be a copyvio: [1]
32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright
(b) for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work
(ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship,
that is permanently situated in a public place or building;
Given that this statue is in a public place, my interpretation of this is that this is not a copyright violation. FWIW, the statue was placed in 1977: [2]. Resolute17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the essay already notes to look at the commons article for country by country rights on freedom of panorama. Resolute18:17, 3 January 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.
orphan, no source, probably PD because she died in 1925 but it's possible this was colorized after her death (which would make it nonfree) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
