The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Anthony Church Albania.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploaded as public domain, but the image is watermarked and the source shows no indication of releasing under PD. I could be wrong, as the source is in another language. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherie gil.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The user has been submitting non-free or presumably non-free images all evening. This image look no different. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Kralizec! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geoff Eigenmann.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File is from [1], user claims it is his own material. The image is also an advertisement and perhaps not suitable for Wikipedia. Wexcan  Talk  04:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jake-cuencagwapo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User has been uploading a string of PUF images. They are again claiming that this is their own work. Wexcan  Talk  04:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Kralizec! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jake cuenca281.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Usr has uploaded a number of nonfree files, again in this instance claiming it as his own work despite a website watermark. Wexcan  Talk  04:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aldebaran-sun.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• SOHO (ESA) images are not free and copyright is not GPL. SOHO copyright notice Aldebaran66 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Anselm Statue at Saint Anselm College.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete freedom of panorama does not extend to sculptures in the United States. ww2censor (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building was built in 1869. The statue may be contemporaneous (and thus likely PD). I have done some searching to try to find out, unsuccessfully thus far. It doesn't look to me like a 20th-cent. statue, but obviously we can't go on that. Chick Bowen 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (Addendum: I e-mailed the college and will report what they say. Chick Bowen 03:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Second addendum: I never heard back from the college; I'll try an actual e-mail address (last time I used the web form). My hunch continues to be that the statue is 1890s or so at the latest, but I haven't confirmed that. If this needs to be closed though, that's fine; I can always undelete it if I can confirm that its PD. Chick Bowen 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Studio style shot of a notable individual. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ice.av06-timewaits.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Visuals1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:REFUND‏78.33.29.108 (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Claim of public domain but seems to suggest it comes from a Sotheby auction catalogue from 1953 Memphisto (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not true comes from an earlier family photographRodolph (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:REFUND‏Rodolph (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As with the File:FrancisFaneofFulbeck.jpg listed above, claim of public domain but identical posting date and very similar quality suggests it comes from the same auction catalogue Memphisto (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not true comes from an earlier family photographRodolph (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephen Henry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This appears to be a publicity photo\ as evidenced by a verison of the image shown here. There is no evidence the uploader is the copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copied from File talk:Stephen Henry.jpg

I own the copywrite to this image and give permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.214.195 (talk)

To confirm you are indeed the copyright holder and can release it under a proper license for use on Wikipedia, please see donating copyright material, and WP:OTRS, Wikipedia:Contact us, and in particular Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission applies in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Uploader claims image is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. Source of image shows no licence information, nor indeed any copyright information at all. Wexcan  Talk  15:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why possible unfree file? The image is a blatant copyright violation, it is not licensed by the copyright holder nor licensed at the source. 2009 Getty Images is the copyright holder per EXIF. --Martin H. (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kept; this image is marked as fair use so it's out of scope for PUF. Please nominate it at WP:NFR or WP:FFD if you think it doesn't qualify as fair use. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: Album cover being used in article about the artist purely as decoration fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI #1. ww2censor (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magic Kingdom Buzz Lightyear-2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of copyrighted character. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I took the picture and I think it's pertinent to the article in which it is, since it is the only picture there to illustrate the character. Thief12 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be that as it may, we can't use it because it's copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies. I was under the impression that pictures taken by myself were allowed if under the GFDL tag. Now I'm reading about the migrating thing, so I'm wondering if it's enough to change the copyright tag, or if the problem will remain because of the image content (i.e. Buzz Lightyear). Thief12 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this picture is set to be deleted tomorrow and I'm still waiting for a reply to my question. I'd appreciate if I get the reply before it is deleted. Thief12 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is the content, not the license under which you released it. The design of the toy is copyrighted, and thus your photograph of it is considered a derivative work. Chick Bowen 06:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Bausch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Just because this appeared on a NEA site, that doesn't mean it is public domain. The photo is credited to Richard Bausch's wife, Karen, not the NEA. http://www.nea.gov/national/homecoming/authorbios/bausch.html Fences&Windows 22:46, 29 December 2009 (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.