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: to keep the following two images. The images are derivatives of images that have lapsed into the public domain based on the research presented. The PD-self tag would therefore be adequate. - Nv8200p talk 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Sitting king logo.png

Image:Sitting king logo.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerem43 ( notify | contribs).

• I don't believe that an MS Paint rendition of a copyrighted logo qualifies as {{ pd-self}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Sitting king.png

Image:Sitting king.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerem43 ( notify | contribs).

• MS Paint rendition of copyrighted logo; don't think that's enough to qualify for pd-self Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Agreed. It is a poor rendition and thus undeserving of being here. 76.126.15.78 ( talk) 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - That is WP:Idontlikeit which is not a valid reason for deletion, can you please provide a policy based reason why it should be removed. -- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Opinion of validity of Sitting King images

The original image that these are based upon was originally trademarked (US Trademark #72306536) but was declared dead by the US Patent and Trademark Office and is invalid, thus there is no infringement. United States Patent and Trademark Office -- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

In that case, we can use a photo/copy of the original logo, rather than an MS Paint rendition. -- Kesh ( talk) 23:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There isn't one, at least not in color. The only version that has been found in color was a very low resolution, heavily pixelated picture that was not a good representation of the original Sitting King Logo. Why does it matter how the logo was created? If I was proficient in Photoshop or Illustrator, would that make it worth keeping? This appears to me to be turning into a comment on my art skills than a discussion on the validity or violation of copyright. I have proven that the images do not violate trademark or copyright and that the {{ pd-self}} license is valid, thus anything else is a content dispute. -- Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC), amended 00:46, 9 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 discussion was: keep. I will assume good faith here that the uploader is the copyright holder as claimed. Even though the poster may have been printed with "all rights reserved," the copyright holder has the authority to alter the licensing at will and release under the GFDL. As for its value to the article, that should be discussed on the article's talk page. - Nv8200p talk 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Martyrmachia.jpg

Image:Martyrmachia.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chensiyuan ( notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic, no evidence uploader owns rights to image, used entirely for self promotion in now-deleted Martyrmachiavellian, which the uploader appeared in. Image was moved to article on NUS Law ostensibly to justify its existence after page was deleted, but provides no encyclopedic value to that article. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• Image also contains copyright notice, so cannot be released under GFDL. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• I own the copyright, simple as that because I designed it. Unless you can find evidence otherwise, this is a typically patently nonsensical allegation by yourself. And, no I did not appear in the show, which is another allegation unsupported by any evidence. As for the value to the article, why not? It's like saying a picture of the Hoyas has got nothing to do with Georgetown University. If the image is representative of a club of a lawschool, how is that tangential? Chensiyuan ( talk) 02:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• The image is labeled as being copyrighted with all rights reserved. This is fundamentally incompatible with GFDL and as such the image is fair use. Under the fair use criterion, the image would need to be addressed within the article of NUS Law School (which, again, would be entirely self-promotion since your name appears all over the credits). This isn't a picture of the mascot of NUS, it's a promotional poster for an amateur movie (which doesn't discuss NUS at all), so the argument about it being representative of anything in the law school is an unlikely reach. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 03:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Then, the copyright can simply be changed. I don't see how just because a person's name appears in the credits = self-promotion... that way, artists releasing their works into the public domain are self-promoting, very daft. No argument was made about it being representative, where did you get that from!? Manderiko ( talk) 01:37, 5 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.