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 discussion was: Delete.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Abhineetnazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):[reply]

• File:IIIT View.jpg
• File:Iiitcc2.JPG
• File:IIIT Entrance.jpg
• File:IIIT Library2.jpg
• File:IIIT Entrance2.jpg
• File:IIIT LibraryF.jpg
• File:IIIT LT.jpg
• File:IIIT Hostel.jpg
• File:IIIT Guest.JPG

The uploader admits he is not the creator nor the copyright holder of the work. While he says "As far as I know it is a public domain picture and has no copyrights", there is no evidence of that and all images probably belong to the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad or to respective artists. I asked for speedy deletion for those images which I could easily locate on the website. Muhandes (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This is unambiguous copyright infringement, the license is false, everything else is details. The uploaded was never taught the basic rule of copyright. Basic rule: Assume everything is copyrighted; It's only not copyrighted if you can show definitive proof that it's no longer copyrighted or you can show it being explicitly released from copyright by the owner of the work. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd love to learn otherwise, but I always assumed "Unambiguous copyright infringement" is for cases where the source is apparent. In this case I could not locate the remaining images on the web, and someone might come up with a PD source, just like the uploader claims. --Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pictures jjb.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source, uploaded under free license with the text "Official Photo for use in campaign material." which does not strike me as being necessarily free. Without the source, can't really be sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:55, 6 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The website states "These pictures are available also in high resolution and they can, of course, be downloaded (please see at the bottom of each picture) free of charge, as long as the source is acknowledged." Using free of charge does not mean public domain; also there is no indication that modification and commercial use are allowed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:28, 6 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thabo 13.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of claimed CC-BY-SA license on the source website Elekhh (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thabo 11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of CC-BY-SA license on source website http://www.gnanananda.org/photo_gallery.html#1 Elekhh (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2011 (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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Extremely unlikely to be user-created. This appears to be a screenshot from a web-resolution video. (For what it's worth, the associated image is probably not safe for work viewing.) (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:59, 6 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:108 0849 sleeping gerbils.sized.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be sourced from a Google image search. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:37, 6 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metaforge logo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo, doubt GFDL-self claim. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gnana Robinson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear copyright status, tagged as cc-by, summary says 'rights with the author.' No evidence of permission. Acather96 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swami Raju.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear copyright status, tagged as self-cc-by, summary says 'rights with the author.', which implies the user has not taken the photograph. No evidence of permission, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2011 (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 discussion was: Keep.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:UTC logo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo, doubt self-cc-by claim. Summary says 'rights with the author'. Acather96 (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the uploader tagged it incorrectly due to lack of knowledge, it clearly falls under ((Non-free school logo)). I added the appropriate FUR as well. --Muhandes (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Concern has been addressed, no reason to delete now. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:04, 12 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Runescape fanart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of Runescape character's/items, no evidence of permission for cc-by claim. Acather96 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has definitely been "authorized" as it appears on Jagex's main page... Legally, I would say this image is fine (IF it were actually CC) since it depicts dragons and other creatures and suits of armor without any possibly infringing symbols or images. However, it falls into a gray area according to Wikipedia guidelines because there is no evidence that it actually is licensed as CC and the origins of the work is pretty sketchily documented. I'm going to say Delete for now, but contact the uploader to see if he can fix the issues.--haha169 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the uploader can provide written permission from the author to license it as CC. I checked the original author's deviantART page and found that they assert copyright on all their pictures, and don't allow reproduction without their written permission. My knowledge of copyright is admittedly lacking but I'm not sure you can license a copyrighted item this way. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is that a watermark I see in the corner? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 00:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is a watermark of the author's logo (you have to zoom in on the bottom-left corner), and that could harm its free license claim further. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then that should be reason enough. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear that it was uploaded by the artist, therefore it's a copyvio per 1ForTheMoney's findings. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I personally commissioned the artwork from the original artist himself via deviantART notes and e-mail. I specifically asked him if I could upload it on Wikipedia under the Creative Commons 3.0 license in his place, which he accepted and the reason why there have been no disputes from him up until now. To further prove he is clearly aware of the upload, asides from me e-mailing the link to him, there are those that have contacted him through my post that would otherwise be impossible. You can verify his permission by actually speaking with him on his deviantART page rather than relying on information not specifically stated on his works. If you would like to note:

• My name Tarikochi (タリーコチ) is written in the commissions credit of the artwork.
• The version I uploaded is different from his, as mine is a larger resolution and lacks the URL at the bottom
• It wouldn't make much sense if he would refuse allowing something he personally drew for me to be uploaded.

As for Jagex's authorization, they have permitted fanart and this type of usage a good while ago. I recall e-mailing them about it and can do so again if necessary. Tarikochi 06:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I'm going to have to agree with Tarikochi on this one based on his points. The person who originally drew something doesn't have to be the one who uploads it. Otherwise, the CC licensed photos would never be uploaded since the original photographers probably doesn't bother with Wikipedia at all. Since he showed that the drawing was indeed CC licensed which was the main issue, then most of you above should be satisfied, right? 122.72.10.201 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't be satisfied until I see the discussion where permission to license under CC 3.0 was given, or the creator notes on the image's page that they will allow this license. Until that is done, my vote stands, but I have nothing against re-uploading when these conditions are met. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have to say Keep. It looks like Tarikochi got Fugaz-star to draw the image for her, so it makes sense that she would upload it for him. Authorization and licensing clearly aren't a problem, and there's nothing wrong with the contents of the image itself, so there isn't any reason to delete it. Clv309 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User has made 2 edits in the past 2 years. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 01:33, 20 June 2011 (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⚡ 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Appears to be a cropped version of http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/3074/post39161215003940hh5.jpg - found with TinEye (http://www.tineye.com/search/b7c329aefe4b4bb2f9c225253860319c6fe65a1c/), the original link http://naderstar.com/vb/showthread.php?p=194959 has died.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (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.