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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:LGGSLogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged ((PD-old-100)), which claims, "This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years." This is (or was) the logo of the Lancaster Girls' Grammar School, which was only established in 1907. No evidence is provided that the creator of this logo died over 100 years ago. —Bkell (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northern panorama.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader tagged this image with ((cc-by-sa-2.5)), but also wrote in the summary, "This work may only be used on Wikipedia." Wikipedia-only permission is not acceptable; see WP:COPYREQ for more details. —Bkell (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2013 (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: Kept, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert P. Morano.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that this was taken by the US government as currently claimed. Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald J. Irwin.xcf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that this was taken by the US government as currently claimed. I can't find out who is behind the www.ourcampaigns.com website, so I don't know if it is a government website or not. Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2013 (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 F1 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Downtown Minot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Overwritten image: two in one. The current one needs evidence of permission. See File:Downtown MinotND.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:GDR Med Ex-Bord-Serv-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the medal. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Med Merit GDR rb.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No licence from the photographer and wrong licence for the medal. According to the template, this is in the public domain because of § 5 Abs.1 UrhG, but according to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG does not apply to artistic works. This is clearly an artistic work. Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Med Merit GDR mr.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No licence from the photographer and wrong licence for the medal. According to the template, this is in the public domain because of § 5 Abs.1 UrhG, but according to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG does not apply to artistic works. This is clearly an artistic work. Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2013 (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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caroline Lacroix Baroness Vaughan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is in the public domain because it is old, but it doesn't say how old this is, so there is no way to verify the claim. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Before uploading this image, and even after the warning, I searched and searched but was not able to find any information regarding the original photographer. I dare say it cannot be attributed. Though I am convinced that this image is free (as in beer, and speech), and that there is likely no copyright in force on this image, due to the time period the photo would have been taken (1906-1914), its likely jurisdiction (Belgium, turn of the 20th century), and its reference/display in many other similarly themed sites around the internet (thus no harm to its commercial value), delete away if you must; it will be Wikipedia's (unnecessary) loss. The image is old. See http://tinyurl.com/ban76lp among others. Haxwell (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So, just did some more reading on what time periods are considered public domain. The Commons:Licensing page says that works created before 1923 are in the public domain. Considering the subject, and comparison with other point of reference photos of her with her children (born 1906 and 1907) there is little argument that this image was created AFTER 1923. That said, perhaps I was being a bit facetious when I added the original file comment, "It is old." Haxwell (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works published before 1923 are in the public domain. If this was taken before 1923 but not published until later, then it may still be protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to fairuse she's dead, so no new free image can be created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 16 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ksh 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Very messy with lots of images in the history. It seems that only some of them have a source and licence. Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2013 (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: File does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richa bhadra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• License says "own work" by user but digital watermarks on picture and metadata of photo indicate source is from a site on Wikipedia's blocklist. This possibly may not be the creation of the user. Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[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 F2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richa bhadra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• License says "own work" by user but digital watermarks on picture and metadata of photo indicate source is from a website on Wikipedia's blocklist. This possibly may not be the creation of the user Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

The file is on Commons. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richa bhadra.jpg instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2013 (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.