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 discussion was: Deleted. I am reading this as sufficiently in doubt that we cannot rely on the PD tag. The image was taken by professional photographer "Dave Tevis" apparently as a work-for-hire. What we need is a permissions email for this to confirm that this fine image is truly released by the copright holder (Either Tevis or the University) - I will drop a note on the related user talk pages - Peripitus (Talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bert Hölldobler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Why PD? Where is the image taken from exactly? It doesn’t help anyone when we delete a file on Commons for being unsourced and it is uploaded to en.wikipedia.org again (to be transfered to - commons without source - later). Polarlys (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken by a photographer employed by Arizona State University, first publication was in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences News Magazine in 2005. We really wanted to call it Fair Use, as that is the most appropriate category for this image--taken by a state government agency, published in a state government magazine, reused many times on state goverment web site; used here to illustrate the visage of a living person.

The Wikimedia upload page had a category for Fair Use at the time of upload. The Wikipedia English upload did not appear to offer this option, so as employees of Arizona State University (in Professor Hölldobler's department) we chose PD as the closest fit. We would greatly appreciate your advice on how to best categorize this type of image. Thanks. --Shapwolf (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Went looking and found WP:FU. So one has to tag it with non-commercial, then write the fair-use rationale? Is the uploader purposely obtruse on this subject as this usage is not favored? We'll either follow this or just shoot another picture of Bert. --Shapwolf (talk) 20:39, 30 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PavilionCollageJune2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This picture shows the Fingask Castle Subscription Mural. This is permanently on display but freedom of panorama here does not extend to 2d artworks (see commons:Commons:Freedom of Panorama#United Kingdom) so that this is a derivative work and cannot be released as a free image by the photographer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate but true. On the other hand, the image would be perfectly acceptable fair use if used in a part of the article discussing this image itself. One issue here is that it is not made exactly clear what the image is - it is clearly not the main Fingask Castle Subscription Mural by Ivan Govorkov and Lena Gubanova. Rather this appears to be another image, by R. de Salis. The question is whether this image has artistic significance, and so whether or not it merits discussion in the article. Jheald (talk) 11:12, 6 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⚡ 00:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glad Peter Forsberg efter sitt 1 0-8971.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 6 Tineye matches... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 30 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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Are interiors covered by US FOP? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The F.O.P. (Fraternal Order of Police)??? (S.S. Miami (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Freedom of panorama :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:04, 30 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⚡ 09:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meri Jeevan Yatra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User-created photograph of a book cover. It's clearly not PD-self as tagged, but might be old enough to be public domain some other way (India, 1944, is the claim on the description page). (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:20, 30 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: Keep; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryu ga gotoku 3 GTMF2009 slideshow12.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Promotional artwork and thus derivative... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:46, 31 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 discussion was: Delete - I am not convinced that this image is free. Though it is stated below that this is a publicity shot, it may also be one of the press images (from United Press International) that Bettmann acquired in 1990. Without a more direct source and some attribution information it is a stretch to claim that this unknown-date unknown-photographer image has a known copyright state - Peripitus (Talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mayer Harlow 37.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no evidence that the press photo's copyright was not renewed. Kostelca (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of a copyright renewal must be published and a search has not shown any copyright or renewal was ever filed. In general, publicity photos by movie studios were not copyrighted as they were intended for publicity, not art to be sold, and were given out freely for publication. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical publicity photo, and as stated by film production expert Eve Light Honathaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.):

Publicity photos . . . have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:06, 14 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mom jeans.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Flickr says image is 'All Rights Reserved' not CC-By-SA as claimed on file page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 30 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 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This image is copyright and available watermarked on the web, and see no reason to believe that the uploader is the copyright owner, John Loomis. http://www.photoshelter.com/image/I0000YrtWOjx__0k Fences&Windows 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I represent the copyright owner who's intent is to make this photo free, what do I need to do to prove this? would a copy of an email suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhalliworth53 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTRS for instructions. Fences&Windows 01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS:4290044 received on this, but not usable as it only says "the creative commons license". Stifle (talk) 11:29, 27 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 discussion was: Kept - Ilmari is most convincing - Peripitus (Talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planet WASP-18 b.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• High quality artist's rendering of a planet. The scientific data available at the sides of the image suggest that this is a screenshot from a copyrighted computer program. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright owner. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be a screenshot from Celestia, which is free software. (Compare with e.g. File:Celestia mars.jpg.) According to the uploader's user page they use their own planet textures, which would indeed make the image fully own work. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:23, 1 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 discussion was: Kept - Ilmari is most convincing - Peripitus (Talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planet HD 17156 b.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• High quality artist's rendering of a planet. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright owner. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well there seems to be no other images around on the web apart from this one, so it looks like an original contribution. If you look at the first upload at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/7f/20091230204114%21Planet_HD_17156_b.png there is some ?Italian data on it, so possibly from a program. Any way there is also File:Brown Dwarf HD 29587 B.png and others from the same person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be a screenshot from Celestia, which is free software. (Compare with e.g. File:Celestia mars.jpg.) According to the uploader's user page they use their own planet textures, which would indeed make the image fully own work. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:23, 1 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simran sethi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to a screenshot of a copyrighted TV show. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:40, 30 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 discussion was: Kept - Ilmari is most convincing - Peripitus (Talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planet 2M 1207 B.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• High quality artist's rendering of a planet. The scientific data available at the sides of the image suggest that this is a screenshot from a copyrighted computer program. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright owner. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be a screenshot from Celestia, which is free software. (Compare with e.g. File:Celestia mars.jpg.) According to the uploader's user page they use their own planet textures, which would indeed make the image fully own work. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:23, 1 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 discussion was: Kept - Ilmari is most convincing - Peripitus (Talk) 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PSR B1257+12 System.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• High quality artist's rendering of a planet. The scientific data available at the sides of the image suggest that this is a screenshot from a copyrighted computer program. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright owner. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be a screenshot from Celestia, which is free software. (Compare with e.g. File:Celestia mars.jpg.) According to the uploader's user page they use their own planet textures, which would indeed make the image fully own work. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:23, 1 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.