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, Solution Offered. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:French laundry carte.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unlikely that the uploader owns the copyright to a restaurant menu. Mosmof (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new menu is produced each day, unique to that day. It does not assert a copyright and the restaurant encourages guests to take the menu home with them. There is no charge for a menu, so no possibility of commercial use or competition. Does there need to be an explicit notice on the menu stating that it is free? —EncMstr (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is whether menus in general are intellectual property, and all intellectual property is copyrighted by default. I'd argue that restaurant menus are intellectual property, especially for high-end restaurants like French Laundry, where menus are very much part of the branding and presentation, so much so that in this case, the restaurant encourages diners to take them home as keepsake.

You seem to be conflating "free of charge" with "copyright free" and/or "free for personal use". Most copyrighted works are free of charge to the consumer and allow private use and viewing. But the understanding is that those copyrighted works are not republished or reproduced.

It goes back to my question above, but if menus are copyrightable intellectual property, then you could easily tag the image as non-free content. Mosmof (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This seems like a ((PD-text)) candidate, hardly any originality in this menu. — ξ^xplicit 08:54, 14 February 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:3334347-502616363.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:48, 31 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:316534493 l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Studio style photo of a band. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The owner of the image is my friend (the lead singer) and gave permission for me to upload the image.--Factorylad (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added a non-permission notice which is probably more appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 5 February 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by MilborneOne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Same image (although without this one's issues) is used at http://www.robertfritz.com/index.php?content=about with a copyright. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the image is now on commons as File:Robert Fritz.jpg it should be deleted CSD-F8. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 5 February 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chippingongar-21june1947.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Requesting some advice on whether the annotations constitute a sufficient addition to have their own copyright (I'm not altogether sure, just want to raise the issue). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, there are a number of similar images for which I don't think this is true. But the sheer quantity of annotations here may complicate matters... - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The annotations on the image explain the features of the airfield photo taken 60 years ago. The photo contains no copyrighted text, and are simply annotations Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:00, 31 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. — ξ^xplicit 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• An original image has been deleted on Commons, thus this is an unauthorized derivative work. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png. Original image may be PD in US only.--Trixt (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PD-US-only is okay on WP, just not on Commons. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ViperSnake is correct. Herostratus (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Yarnalgo _talk to me 18:59, 6 February 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AAAACsqEjQAAAAAAAA13zQ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence it was released into the public domain. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo could be survived by un-free fair use policy, like the logo of the big club. But the source, claimed from a Cambodian web site made it possible from a copyright violation website Matthew_hk tc 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source may from this one, which qualified the fair use rule, so i will upload one with a good image name. Matthew_hk tc 01:57, 1 February 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dublin Airport.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Does not look like a self published image more like a publicity/brochure shot, image uploaded by a sock of blocked user User:Historian19 with a history of misunderstanding copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 31 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.