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: Retagged as ((di-no permission)). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the source based on image color and copyright. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:29, 14 June 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⚡ 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dangit, wrong button. Meant to list this at FFD. Should it be relisted there or should the discussion continue here (since the image was tagged as being free since I tagged it...) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:04, 28 June 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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on uploaders comments, more discussion is probably needed before any deletion... I don't know the details of the pre-1978 thing in regard to yearbooks. Any help would be great. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no copyright notice in the yearbook (as the uploader suggests), this would indeed be in the public domain per ((PD-pre1978)). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I still don't know all the details on copyrights. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 15 June 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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on image quality, color, and lack of metadata, I'm unsure if this image's source is accurate, which also brings the GFDL claim into question. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; uploader has previously demonstrated a lack of understanding and/or respect for copyright. It is likely that this is not his/her own creation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Uploader owns the original photograph and has been allowed full priveledges by all members of the former band, Sonic Erotica.--Mirror Man (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Since Mirror Man has been blocked as a sock, his claim of ownership should be assumed to be invalid. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:23, 29 July 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: Withdrawn –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the one two sections up. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no copyright notice in the yearbook (as the uploader suggests), this would indeed be in the public domain per ((PD-pre1978)). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I still don't know all the details on copyrights. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 15 June 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: Withdrawn –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no copyright notice in the yearbook (as the uploader suggests), this would indeed be in the public domain per ((PD-pre1978)). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I still don't know all the details on copyrights. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 15 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source and no evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 (talk) 08:17, 14 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 (talk) 08:28, 14 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a logo MaenK.A._Talk 08:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC) It is a logo . You may watch Westward II's refferences to see the logo . It is on the site . [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andra2404 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a logo MaenK.A._Talk 08:38, 14 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if a Full Front Page of a newspaper can qualify as a unique historic image when the Purpose of use is Sourcing of a Articles Citation. Only a single Picture from that Front Page is needed. (Better yet, where did the paper get the picture). No Rational provided for Article it is used in. No copyright information provided in Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I should also mention that File:Malik Ambar.jpg is a derivative of this work that has a wrong copyright (claiming it as the uploaders own work- PD-self ). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:04, 14 June 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⚡ 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It has be so tagged. I continue to believe that a picture in a picture of a broadsheet coverpage is a copyright violation. As well as derivative works made from such a picture. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rational has been updated, but does still not,IMO, clear the problems.

• Rational:"It is being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic." which seems contrary to the Licensing:"Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed."
• Rational:(Other info)"TOI has willingly published such images to represent their works"... has TOI given permission for their works to be used, in its entirety, at 2,048 × 1,536 pixel resolution. (entire Article is readable, thats not LOW rsolution)
• Image may be on TOI's front cover, but it is not a photograph, its a drawing/artwork, where no source is stated. Is it TOI's place to be giving out copyright of an unknown or unsourced drawing/artwork? It may not be theirs to give.
• By creating a Derivative work (File:Malik Ambar.jpg) claiming it as your own work, and releasing it to PublicDomain at 1,200 × 1,800 pixels, The original creator of this drawing/artwork is being ignored/uncredited.

Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite various interactions, the File:Malik Ambar.jpg is still listed as being created by the Uploader and released to public domain, where this is clearly not the case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:52, 16 July 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This hardly looks like a photograph of an out of copyright work; it looks more like a film screenshot. J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 14 June 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly posed, web resolution. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this file. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 14 June 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly posed, web resolution. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this file. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 14 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web resolution image, odd border. I suspect the uploader does not own the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 14 June 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very old image. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this file. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an old image, which I found in my mother's personal photo album. I don't know if that counts or not. Please advise. Metalloids (talk)

Who took the original photo? Do you know? J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 24 July 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.