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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hard Lessons.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• book cover; no source or metadata; unlikely author or publishing company released this into PD Skier Dude (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:RedRyderLogo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source; not an album cover. This is a play that has been produced by a great many organisations which will have used a wide variety of artwork (securing rights to put up a production does not include rights to artwork). I know this piece and would be pleased to see a source found so that the image can be kept. see: When You Comin' Back, Red Ryder? Jack Merridew 10:00, 17 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heartkun4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image has no listed source, but the copyright tag implied it is owned by the uploader. However, the image is used all over the Internet per Google Image Search, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467719/Will-love-fur-ever.html may be the original source. –Grondemar 18:48, 17 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cometmcnaught150106.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Licensed as PD - but claimed Non-Proft free-reuse in description Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (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: nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShoppersWorld Framingham 1974.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Limited FOP in US Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination, Mistaken understanding of US FoP - Please read Commons: COM:FOP#United_States , which seems to clearly indicate this image is in fact acceptable :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mia saini cnbc.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a thumbnail of a TV screengrab to me. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:DoorpanelsfromNormandie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 2D/3D artwork - Originated in France Mid 30's - may stil be subject to copyright Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2010 (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; the file is free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Normandie doors.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Artwork - 2D/3D - originated partly in France in the mid 30's - Dont see how this can be free Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact it was made in France is unimportant, the photograph was taken in the United States. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I took this photograph. The doors are currently the front doors of a public building and if they were once ever copyright-protected, they surely cannot be now. From our own copyright page on the subject: "U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places." Ford MF (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This must surely cover the case of the above DoorpanelsfromNormandie.jpg as well. Ford MF (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's photographed is the doors and artwork on them directly as opposed to the building, Are you saying that in this both instances whats shown is non-removable 'architectural' part of the building that is featured? Commons:COM:FOP#United_States says the item you refer to only applies to architecture (which I am reading as 'architectural' elements), and not artworks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The U.S.'s lack of freedom of panorama covers free-standing art, not art that's a feature of a building. The Ceders of Lebanon church is a public building and it is not copyright protected. A non-copyright-protected photograph cannot be considered copyright protected simply by zooming in to smaller parts of it. Windows, mosaics, arches, statues, things used as ornamentation on a building, none of these are prohibited by the U.S.'s lack of FOP. Ford MF (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2010 (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.