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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No information given by the uploader. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:39, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image likely sourced from a website:Small size and no metadata. Polly (Parrot) 01:15, 16 July 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: Keep. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the text of the newspaper articles within gives me the impression this is not a public domain; the articles are being used artistically, however, it still leaves open the claim buy the said newspapers to copyright abuse. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any clarification on how the copyrights of political brochures before 1978 are determined? I asked for advice for this on the nonfree content talk page before I uploaded the image, and .... per my recent grumblings about consistency and authority, was told that they predate 1978 so they should be in the public domain. Save Our Children no longer exists, clearly. The files were sent to me by the Stonewall Library in Ft. Lauderdale, who has a collection of the materials used in the campaign. --Moni3 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper articles contained in the public domain flier are not readable and thus are de minimis. The titles themselves are too short for copyright protection. The claim of ((PD-Pre1978)) is valid. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, IronGargoyle is right, we can't read them. Unless there are further objections. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:54, 18 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Weil images are copyrighted per: http://www.raymond-weil.com/EN/RW-Geneva/Legal-notice.html Cacophony (talk) 05:48, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Weil images are copyrighted per: http://www.raymond-weil.com/EN/RW-Geneva/Legal-notice.html Cacophony (talk) 05:48, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanned book cover, not enough originality for uploader to claim copyright. Permission asserted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:13, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted software- even if not copyrighted, contains an image which almost certainly is. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? There are tons of proprietary software program screen shots like this, on wikipedia; their FUR applies to the image in question. Is that news to you? I think not.--Elvey (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the image is non-free and meets our non-free content criteria, you are welcome to add a rationale and switch the copyright tag to a non-free one. The image will not be deleted through this medium if that is done. J Milburn (talk) 02:03, 30 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website of the software says "Maxamundo Content may not be downloaded, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written consent of Maxamundo Limited, or Maxamundo's licensor's. Maxamundo reserves all rights not expressly granted in and to the MaxamundoContent." J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? There are tons of proprietary software program screen shots like this, on wikipedia; their FUR applies to the image in question. Is that news to you? I think not.--Elvey (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the FUR be on each files article page? Sure. But the fact that it's not doesn't mean the images should be deleted, AFAIK. Deleting them harms the encyclopedia, it doesn't help it.--Elvey (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your action is cited as an example of Copyright paranoia. That makes it standard. That page is venerable. It says:

Screenshots of free software applications, and small illustrative screenshots. It should generally be no problem if a screenshot is copied from the official product page.

Your actions and comments make it clear that you find content that you think doesn't add value to the encyclopedia, and reference technicalities as an excuse to remove that content, instead of deleting it while being honest about the real reason that you want to delete it. This image is a solid example.--Elvey (talk) 19:45, 30 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web resolution, older photo. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source website says "© 2008, Province of Negros Occidental". Same image was uploaded as for noncom only. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clearly a publicity shot taken from another website. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of copyrighted software. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the screenshot and I am the owner of the application. Pls advise on what I should do to fix this. Thanks.

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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, very low res, looks like a thumbnail, probably taken from elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a film publicity photo. I doubt this was self made, and doubt that it is in the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may well have been self-made - the film never existed, and I've deleted the article as a hoax. It's still junk, though, so delete away! Shimgray | talk | 18:43, 28 July 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⚡ 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this image is public domain. I can actually see the copyright notice. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the title panel of the the 1943 Famous Studios Superman cartoon "Secret Agent". The ENTIRE series of Fleischer/Famous Studios Superman cartoons from the early 40s are very well known to be public domain. This is a frame from that public domain cartoon. If you check, nearly all of the other cartoons in the series are similarly represented on wikipedia by their title cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1938superman (talk • contribs) 10:59, 16 July 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 as F9 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a stitch-together of several images, with no sources or copyright details given. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Ticket:2009071210017378. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The ticket has produced no useful permission. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At least one image appears to be taken from copyrighted flickr image [1] uploader has done this before, too. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:54, 22 September 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this users copyvio uploads there is no reason to suppose this image is theirs to license. Its small size and lack of metadata means it was likely sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 19:44, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this users copyvio uploads there is no reason to suppose this image is theirs to license. Its small size and lack of metadata means it was likely sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 19:45, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exact image is found here, which is part of a publicity webpage for the Fort Griffin Fandangle. Blargh29 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this users copyvio uploads there is no reason to suppose this image is theirs to license. Its small size and lack of metadata means it was likely sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 19:45, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this users copyvio uploads there is no reason to suppose this image is theirs to license. Its small size means it was likely sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 19:46, 16 July 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 ESkog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this users copyvio uploads there is no reason to suppose this image is theirs to license. Its lack of metadata means it was likely sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 19:48, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image located here on a publicity webpage. No evidence that uploader is the copyright owner. Blargh29 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason Evpope (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the marketing person at Scott System and received permission from the company to upload the pictures off our company server onto Wikipedia.

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.