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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Camera" is not a source. Image is web resolution with no metadata; suspect copvio from some website. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:04, 10 August 2009 (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 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 file 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 by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a work of the US federal government; not sure what the status of Arizona state works would be. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:27, 10 August 2009 (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 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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License listed as CC-By but actually CC-NC-ND according to the original source on Flickr. Not used in any articles. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2009 (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 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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of campus buildings, but listed as a low-resolution logo. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2009 (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 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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded claimed CC-By-SA, but on Flickr this is listed as copyrighted, not under any CC license. No longer used in any article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2009 (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 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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the uploader claimed CC-By-SA, the source on Flickr is listed as copyrighted. No longer used in any article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2009 (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 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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed by the uploader as CC-By, but the original Flickr source says CC-NC-ND. No longer used in any article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2009 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Appears that FOP does apply to this UK image. Skier Dude (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A waxwork likeness is an artwork - Does Tussad's count as 'public' for FOP? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What other license should I use?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aashish950 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Commons seems to indicate that FOP in the UK applies to both public places and places open to the public. I think Tussad's would qualify. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2009 (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 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 discussion was: Kept, reasonable explanation provided. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Self made - The Firefly ref implies this is from TV? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Welens (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, I drawn this file in vector editor, based on shots from Firefly episodes Bushwhacked and The Train Job (shown on boxes and side of alliance cruiser).[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 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 file 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 by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first of a number of images uploaded by the same user for which I am requesting review. According to the uploader's notes, the photos are from 1978 and 1988. I have not yet found anything to verify that the putative origin, the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, is public domain. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mugham Festival.jpg. I came upon this contributor following an ANI notice alleging that he may be a sockmaster of a Commons account committing deliberate copyright fraud. The person who brought this concern to the board noted that prior to the placement of this image on Wikipedia, it was published here. (Likewise, though now on Commons, File:Nizami Ganjavi Museum - Baku.jpg had been very previously published here.
• File:Resettlement of Armenians.jpg. If this image is from 2005, is it PD? Authorship is assigned to someone other than uploader, but information is insufficient to verify PD status.
• File:Azeri Babek schoolbook.jpg. Evidently a scan from a schoolbook.
• File:Kara Karayev.jpg. Another contributor uploaded this. When copyright was challenged, this contributor declared that it was his to release. The gentleman in this image died in 1982 at the age of 64, which would suggest this picture was taken no later than, say, 1970. Is this contributor the photographer here? There seems to have been a history of uploading images to his website and claiming them; see File:Azerbaijan map.gif, where evidently an administrator determined a different (but public domain) point of origin for an image similarly claimed.
• File:Kerimov21.jpg. Similar situation as the previous, although the photograph is more recent.

These are not the only images uploaded by this user and there are others that would benefit from copyright clarification, but these are the ones that stood out to me as most problematic. I'm requesting review of the copyright status of these and will, of course, notify the uploader. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 10 August 2009 (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 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 discussion was: deleted, published previously at [1]. Amalthea 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claims to copyright ownership magnius (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2009 (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 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 discussion was: deleted, published previously at [2]. Amalthea 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim to copyright ownership magnius (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2009 (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 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 discussion was: deleted, didn't find a prior publication, but guilty by association since thirteen other uploads by the user from today where he claimed to hold copyright have been found blatant copyright violations. Amalthea 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of copyright ownership magnius (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2009 (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 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 discussion was: OTRS ticket does not have a free license release and one does not appear to be forthcoming. Deleted without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description says the image is contributed by "Eden Litt" and that the picture is "available for use under the guidelines of GNU protocol". (I'm guessing someone is trying to say GFDL, but they could mean GPL, which I would guess/assume is non-free for our purposes, or LGPL, among other things.) It is tagged with a CC-BY-3.0 tag. Is the uploader the author? If not, who the author is and what their licensing intentions are need to be clarified. B (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS still pending Skier Dude (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2009 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.