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 Runningonbrains (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image obviously sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 00:25, 23 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this was in a scrap book, is it reasonable to assume that the uploader took the photograph? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:52, 23 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⚡ 11:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason Cardena (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph of the SS Cardena is believed to have been taken by Cyril R. Littlebury at Prospect Point, Stanley Park, Vancouver BC, Canada c. 1925. Mr. Littlebury was a noted photographer of Western Canada. He died in 1936. In November 1999, I purchased the original negative of this image, including all attendant rights. I am the current copyright holder. Cardena (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Cardena[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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under Icelandic law, a photograph of a building is considered a derivative image and they building's copyright belongs to the architect, see Article 16 of the Icelandic Copyright Act. Copyright in Iceland does not expire until the 70th year following the death of the copyright holder (See Article 43). The architect of this building, Guðjón Samúelsson, died in 1950, therefore the copyright for images of this building still belong to Guðjón's estate until 2021. JD554 (talk) 12:43, 23 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No licensing info provided. Image is for a specific year's event; file supporting information includes a PDF link for the specific year's event. Potentially promotional material; material potentially covered by copyright A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:40, 23 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 Billinghurst (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No information is provided as to how this image was generated, though the user indicates that he owns the copyright to the image. However it contains technical information such as frequencies, which would have been sourced from somewhere. No sourcing of these frequencies have been provided. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they have read the files talk page if those are not sources I don't know what they are. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 20:56, 23 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: Delete all. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of a complicated problem, and I do have some un-answered questions, so I'll try to be as clear as possible. San anjelo (talk · contribs) has uploaded many, many images under the ((pd-self)) tag. Many have already been deleted as possible or proven copyright violations (see User talk:San anjelo, especially where the user has been blocked twice). Some of these, such as File:Malolos Santo Cristo.jpg, could conceivably be self-made, so I decided to leave them alone for now. However, many images are low-resolution with no metadata (such as File:Santa isabel church.jpg), a few are clearly made by someone else (such as File:Malolosmap.gif, and others are aerial photos which I highly doubt were taken by the user in question (such as File:Bulacan Capital.jpg). I have listed these likely copyvios below:

1. File:Malolosmap.gif
2. File:Malolos arch.jpg
3. File:Santa isabel church.jpg
4. File:Bulacan Sunset.jpg
5. File:Bulacan Capital.jpg
6. File:Bulacan Aerial View.jpg
7. File:Linggo ng Bulacan.jpg
8. File:BULSU Aerial View.jpg
9. File:Old AtlagUMC.GIF
10. File:AtlagUMC sketch.jpg
11. File:Malolos Basilica.jpg
12. File:Umc philippines 100years.jpg

Second part: there are a few other images which are low-resolution, but which have metadata. However, all of these pictures have the exact same metadata stored in them, and it seems suspicious, especially since they appear to be taken from different distances and in different lighting conditions. See File:Gregorio del Pilar Monument.jpg for an example. Is it possible to insert fake metadata into a file to make it appear as if you took the picture? Or could it be some quirky error from an old camera and the pictures could indeed be self made? I have listed the images which meet this condition below:

1. File:Gregorio del Pilar Monument.jpg
2. File:Bulacan Capitol.jpg
3. File:Malolos City Hall.jpg
4. File:Malolos Bayan.jpg

Note that this leaves a lot of possibly copied maps, such as File:Malolos Caniogan.jpg, which I have not listed, although I am suspicious because they were all uploaded on the same day. I would like those to get looked at if someone has the time. Thank you in advance for helping me sort this out. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:53, 23 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.