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. No evidence that image is not in PD in US. Earliest known publication, with permission, is 1967 in Rhodesia and therefore in PD in US by virtue of being in PD in Zimbabwe on relevant URAA date (1996) Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Pat Judson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image was created before 1923 but there's no evidence been presented that it was published anywhere before 1967, so it might not be in the public domain as claimed. Dianna (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Somewhat annoying that we don't know for sure what country it was created in, but on investigation it appears not to PD anyway. I put the present pre-1923 tag there because of the ambiguity but I think on reflection this wasn't the right thing to do as, as you say, it doesn't appear to have been published before 1923 (it appears to have been a family photograph, not originally made for public release).
• I think we can assume the original photograph was taken between 1916 (when Pat Judson joined the Royal Flying Corps) and 1919 (when the war formally ended)—or maybe soon afterwards. Its modern copyright status depends on whether it originated in England or Rhodesia; the former would put it under British copyright law while the latter would refer us to the Zimbabwean rules.
• If the picture was taken in the UK, since the original author is not known, "it falls into the public domain 70 years after it was created, unless it was published during those 70 years" (see here). Since the picture was published in 1967 (in Rhodesia), it would not be PD under the British rules.
• If it was made in Rhodesia, then it becomes PD 50 years after the first publication (see here). Since it was published in 1967 (though created long before), it appears that 2017 is the soonest this picture can be used.
• I hope this is all helpful, and I apologise for misinterpreting the rules before. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia uses USA law, not British or Rhodesian law.
• If it was published before 1923, then it is out of copyright in the United States. Unfortunately, we have no evidence of any such publication.
• If it was published between 1923 and February 1989 and certain other criteria apply, then it is out of copyright in the United States if it was out of copyright in the country of first publication on 1 January 1996.
• It says that the image was published in Rhodesia in 1967. According to WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, photos enter the public domain in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe 50 years after they were taken if they were taken before 1967, or 50 years after they were published if they were taken in 1967 or later. This was taken before 1967, so it entered the public domain in Rhodesia 50 years after it was taken.
• Problem 1: This was already in the public domain in Rhodesia when it was published in 1967. It only counts as publication according to USA rules if the copyright holder gives consent for publication. However, since the photo was in the public domain in Rhodesia, the Rhodesian publisher had no reason to ask for permission from the person holding the copyright to the photo in the United States, unless this was a condition to access a copy of the photo in the first place. This may mean that it was published without permission from the person holding the copyright to the photo in the United States and that USA copyright law thus still considers the photo as "unpublished".
• Problem 2: Was this previously published in the United Kingdom? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was published in 1967 in Rhodesiana, a national history journal, in a historical profile of Judson, who had died some years previously in a plane crash in Rhodesia. This article is where I encountered it. Whether this was the first publication of the image I don't know. The picture is of the four members of the family and the source given for the picture is Judson's sister Mazoe, who is also noted as a major source for much of the information in the article. I am inclined to interpret all this as the picture originally being a family photo, meant for the home rather than publishing, which Mazoe provided to Rhodesiana along with the information she gave. The picture does not appear to have been published anywhere else. Thanks for helping with this as it would be nice to keep the picture if possible. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that it is in the public domain in the United States. I see four potential options:
    1. Published before 1923: In the public domain in the United States (((PD-1923))).
    2. First published in 1967 (or earlier) and at least one publication was with the consent of the copyright holder: In the public domain in the United States as it was already in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996 (((PD-URAA))).
    3. First published in 1967 (or earlier) and no publication was with the consent of the copyright holder: Not in the public domain. However, if it wasn't with the consent of the copyright holder, then one could wonder how the publisher was able to publish the photo in the first place. How do you obtain a copy of a photo which has never been published with permission from the copyright holder, unless you yourself are the copyright holder? This option is simply not a likely scenario.
    4. First published in a country other than Rhodesia: Other rules may apply depending on the country of the photography. However, this is a problem with all photos. Shouldn't we simply assume that the first identified publication is the first one until proven otherwise? If not, we would have to delete a tremendous amount of photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 3 May 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shaista Lodhi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is very likely a screen shot from her TV show, jusdging by the background, which matches that seen in other screen shots available via Google search, such as this one and this one. Dianna (talk) 04:52, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is not a straight scan, but a photograph of the book as a three dimensional object. As such, whoever took the picture owns the copyright to this image; it's not PD.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Fairly clearly product packaging. Didn't speedy because I couldn't find clear evidence online that it existed prior to upload here. Seems like a WP:DUCK situation, but you never know. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whether it is product packaging or not, it clearly violates Commons:COM:TOYS. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fairuse it is used in the toy article, and any photo of this product would be under copyright restriction, so this would always necessarily be a fair use image. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin: We don't have an article about the toy, only about the character, so the image fails to meet the fair use guidelines. -- Dianna (talk) 14:09, 26 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The permission is for uploading a photo of a vi:Xôi gấc dish, but this seems to be some other dish. Besides, the permission is only to upload the photo, but Wikipedia additionally requires that the image is available under a free licence. Stefan2 (talk) 11:46, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It is not clear where the licence claim comes from. There doesn't seem to be any statement about any permission at the indicated websites. Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frances crowe 30july06 mini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The header is "Permission to use photo" and the text says "Yes, with photo credit to the photographer (me)." Is this only a permission to use the photo (as opposed to modify the photo)? Who is allowed to use the photo? Only Wikipedia or also other people? Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It says that this is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but it doesn't say where it was published before 1923, so there is no way to verify this claim. Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adolphe Sax bass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It seems that the permission to modify the image only applies if you make the image look "good" but not if you make the image look "bad". Compare with Douglas Crockford#Criticism. Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bank Nationalisation - India.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work. Photo of a copyrighted newspaper Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:53, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabri Brothers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a scan of some printed thing. Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:McDonalds M&M McFlurry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a McFlurry cup. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a problem with that? This page is full of images of McDonald's products. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Commons:COM:CB#Product packaging. Photos of food are fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but my computer does not allow access to the Commons, so I can't open that page. Still, what about the other McFlurry pic on that list? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• based on my understanding of the page, the problem is the decals on the cup. This could be used locally under a fair use claim. Alternatively, next time you go to Mc'D's, you could take the picture straight down into the cup, so we see the weird spoon and the shake, but no decals. Either way, this image needs to go or become fair use.Tazerdadog (talk) 16:11, 21 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⚡ 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rok army exercise.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is available under a "Konggongnuri" (공공누리, Commons:Template:KOGL) licence. The source states "상업용금지" and "변경금지". Sorry, but we can't accept images which can't be used commercially and which can't be modified. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 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 discussion was: Retain user-created flag; delete copy vio picture of assault tank. Dianna (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mm-artillery-flag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Overwritten file. The current revision is a copyright violation.[1] Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy revert -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:38, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There is no evidence that the source website belongs to the US government or that it hosts US government contents. There is also no evidence that the image appears at the source. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There is no evidence that the source website belongs to the US government or that it hosts US government contents. There is also no evidence that the image appears at the source. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unclear permission: it is not clear if the permission only is for using the image in a specific Wikipedia article or if it is for using it under a free licence. Besides, it is too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin comment: The onus is on the uploader to have the required permissions in place, not on the patrolling editor. The email does not specify a license or give enough information about what permissions are being granted, and thus is inadequate. -- Dianna (talk) 00:28, 27 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It seems that the permission only is for Wikipedia. Besides, it is too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no indication it is Wikipedia-only, it clearly states in the request email of further reuse. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:32, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It seems that the permission only is for Wikipedia. Besides, it is too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:29, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spiveys-stonemarker.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No freedom of panorama in the United States. The illustration on the stone is of unknown age. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matewan-marker2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No freedom of panorama in the United States. Sign of unknown age. Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oconalufteesign2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a sign of unknown age. Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia-only permission. Besides, too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the requesting email clearly states the further reuse of the image, so I don't see any Wikipedia-only restriction. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, reading carefully, I see that the permission is for "propagat[ing] knowledge to everybody". Thus, even some Wikipedia use may be invalid. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It is not clear whether the photographer agreed to a free licence (and if so, which free licence he agreed to). Besides, it is too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the company again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:26, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sorryworld1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Also, the statement "The photo us under no Creative Commons license or any other copyright." is unclear. Not licensed under Creative Commons. Not sure what he means with "any other copyright". Does it mean that the photo is in the public domain or that it is unlicensed? Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fair use as a historic image documenting the inspiration point. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:25, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:P9211295.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear if the permission gives you the right to modify the image. Also too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:19, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:P9261313.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear if the permission gives you the right to modify the image. Also too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:19, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It says that this is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but it doesn't say when or where it was published, so there is no way to verify that claim. Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It seems that the permission only is to "use" the image (whatever that means). Besides, it is too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:20, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It seems that the permission isn't for any particular licence and it is too recent for Commons:COM:GOF anyway. Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fair use subject is dead, so no new free photo can be created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin comment: The person who sent the email is not the copyright holder as they did not take the photo. We do not have permission for the artwork hanging on the wall in the background, so fair use is out of the question. -- Dianna (talk) 00:46, 27 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amarobottles2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It seems that the permission only gives the uploader the right to "use" the image, whatever that means. It doesn't seem to be available under a free licence. It is additionally too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? The photographer in the quoted email seemed amenable to creating new images for Wikipedia. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:23, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unclear permission statement: the permission is for use under "the Creative Commons license". Without knowing which Creative Commons licence this is, it isn't possible to tell whether the image is available under a free licence or not. Besides, this is too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, it is English Wikipedia. Further, the 2012 email quoted states that further request can be made of the photographer, so why not just open an OTRS request on it? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:16, 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⚡ 02:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulgarian wine regions map.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possible copyright violation. User:Plamenski attributes the author of several similar maps to be Plamen Gueorguiev at http://www.zelas.co.uk, but uses an incorrect license and no record of permission for use. vlad§inger ^tlk 18:22, 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 discussion was: Keep, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Srmcem logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged ((PD-self)), but the summary says, "Scanned from Document." —Bkell (talk) 18:31, 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 discussion was: Keep, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ernest Smith VC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is tagged ((PD-Canada)), but no evidence is provided to support that public-domain claim. The date of the photograph is not provided. The Canadian government Web site that this image came from apparently claims to restrict the use of this image to "personal or public non-commercial use," but non-commercial licenses are not free enough for Wikipedia; see WP:NONCOM. Furthermore, even if this photograph is in the public domain in Canada, no evidence is provided that it is in the public domain in the United States. See Template:PD-Canada for the criteria for that; no justification is provided that those criteria are met. —Bkell (talk) 18:41, 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⚡ 03:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dahr headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that the permission is for using the image under "the creative commons license" but it doesn't say which Creative Commons it is. Besides, it is too recent for Commons:COM:GOF. Stefan2 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't commons, this is English Wikipedia. Further, since there's an email correspondence quoted, why not just open an OTRS request, and try contacting the photographer again? The email response explicitly states you can contact the photographer again for further resolution. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin comment: These images should have had a formal OTRS tag applied, as the system was created in March 2006. The attached emails are too vague, not specifying a license or which uses are being permitted. -- Dianna (talk) 00:37, 27 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⚡ 03:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libermann MST.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Commons:COM:FOP#Canada doesn't apply to 2D things like these logos. Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 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 discussion was: Kept, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pdba logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is the logo of the Political Database of the Americas. It is tagged ((Attribution)). The summary quotes the source page as saying, "Documents, statistics, data and other official governmental or public materials presented in the Political Database of the Americas (PDBA) are public domain." But this image doesn't seem to fall into the category of "other official governmental or public materials"—it is the logo of the site itself. The summary then also claims, "This image is copyrighted. The license holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the PDBA is credited." But no evidence is provided to support that claim. —Bkell (talk) 19:54, 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⚡ 03:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It says both "public domain" and "publicity photo", which seems contradictory. There are two different images under the same name and both are everywhere on the Internet. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 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 SouthernNights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of a statue of unknown age in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photo myself and released it under GFDL, all of which is stated in the page and its info.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make the statue, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under United States law, that doesn't matter. And under Wikipedia guidelines, it likewise doesn't matter. It's an image of a public statue in a public location. Is there a Wikipedia policy which shows this is not allowed?--SouthernNights (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under United States law, you are not permitted to take photos of copyrighted sculptures unless you have permission from the sculptor. See for example Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. As an admin I'll delete the photo. However, the other two photos, which you admit are pre-1923, have no reason for deletion.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:58, 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 SouthernNights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It says that this is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but it doesn't say when or where it was published, so there is no way to verify this claim. Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject died in 1909. Therefore the photo is before 1923.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken before 1923, yes. However, there is no information about when it was first published. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For old photos, it's not always possible to establish that. However, if it can be proved that the photo is pre-1923 then it doesn't matter if the publication info can't be established. Is there a Wikipedia guideline which says otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])

If it was published before 1923, then it is in the public domain. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 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 as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taylor Swift Elle.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Deviantart doesn't seem to be the original source.[2] Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other source that you linked to took the scans, but the deviant art person just so happened to not only take the scans, but take the background out too. So this is freely the deviant art person's work.--Nyswimmer (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin comment: This is a copyright photograph that appeared in the December 2012 edition of Elle Canada magazine. -- Dianna (talk) 02:40, 27 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⚡ 03:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oraniaday.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 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.