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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinkhole Guatemala City 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• flickr source says image is under by-NC-sa Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point.. I must have totally missd the Noncommercial part of the license aza (talk) 17:48, 1 June 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⚡ 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rampage jackson chains.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image looks suspiciously like a promotional photo. I don't believe that the Flickr user who posted it to his page at [1] is actually authorized to license it CC-BY-SA. +Angr 17:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image is produced by a company named Xploited Media that creates images for iPhone backgrounds and offers them here. They offer these images under Creative Commons cc-by-sa 3.0 as per the image page in Flickr. The assumption that some random citizen downloaded this image and then has falsely purported it as their own on Flickr is incorrect. I'm emailing them to confirm that their own attribution in Flickr is correct. +Hutcher (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, good. They should contact the Wikimedia Foundation via OTRS. +Angr 19:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image author is affirming that they have rights to the image and that, yes, they offer the image with cc-by-sa 3.0. I'll forward that email to OTRS and I will also clarify their attribution on the file. I don't know if this will placate you but I'm not sure what else I can do. --Hutcher (talk) 03:14, 3 June 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asin in Kaakha Kaakha Remake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a professional still from an upcoming film, which can be found at, for example, here, described as a "photo exclusive". The editor's upload log strongly suggests that they're falsly claiming copyright and releasing it into the public domain as a way to bypass deletion due to improper licensing. Ibn (talk) 18:48, 1 June 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⚡ 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BF2010Effigy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo of artwork - Authorship of artowrk unclear.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• * DELETE - Photos from Burning Flipside are not free. Commercial use requires permission from Austin Artistic Reconstruction LLC. As much as I love the event (and this year it was awesome) we need a release from copyright restrictions to post these pictures. In fact, all the pictures of effigy's I proposed for deletion for the same reason (unfortunately). Spectre9 (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• * additional information on non-free status at <http://www.burningflipside.com/media> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectre9 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Media Liason from Austin Artistic Reconstruction has said that use of this photo and this entry are "ok as long as they aren't making money, there's no gross misrepresentation of the even and the photo policy isn't violated" --Pboyd04 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed that Commercial use requires permission. This is non-commercial use. I took the picture and assisted in construction of the artwork. --Pboyd04 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images used at Wikipedia must be free for commercial use unless they're being used under a fair use claim. The fact that Wikipedia itself is noncommercial is irrelevant; our content must be reusable for commercial purposes. Also, note that permission to use the photos at Wikipedia is insufficient. Either the images must be free for anyone to use (also commercially), or else we claim fair use (which means we claim we don't need no steenkin' permeession). +Angr 05:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-free. Copyrighted statue/artwork protected by US Freedom of Panorama law per commons:COM:FOP#United States. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To expand upon my earlier point, the photographer could only release the picture under any license (which they haven't specified which one) if they hold the copyright to the sculpture, which as I understand it means that they would need to have designed the structure, not just aided in the building. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is a non-copyrighted piece of artwork, therefore the Freedom of Panorama law does not apply. --Pboyd04 (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this artwork non-copyrighted? From my research artists submit proposed designs for the effigies, so the artist's design would be the original copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:18, 14 June 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⚡ 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Watermarked file, no proof of identity or evidence of permission GlassCobra 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The uploader, who has been here for five years and made nearly 15,000 edits, claims to be the owner of the website on their userpage. Considering the file contains the metadata, I'd assume good faith and believe the claim. If needed, ask the uploader to contact OTRS and verify that he is Matt Becker and releases the images under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 00:36, 15 June 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⚡ 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Watermarked file, no proof of identity or evidence of permission GlassCobra 22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The uploader, who has been here for five years and made nearly 15,000 edits, claims to be the owner of the website on their userpage. Considering the file contains the metadata, I'd assume good faith and believe the claim. If needed, ask the uploader to contact OTRS and verify that he is Matt Becker and releases the images under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 00:36, 15 June 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⚡ 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Watermarked file, no proof of identity or evidence of permission GlassCobra 22:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no proof of permission. feydey (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The uploader, who has been here for five years and made nearly 15,000 edits, claims to be the owner of the website on their userpage. Considering the file contains the metadata, I'd assume good faith and believe the claim. If needed, ask the uploader to contact OTRS and verify that he is Matt Becker and releases the images under a free license. — ξ^xplicit 00:36, 15 June 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.