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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:100 0432a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image contains non-free photo. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:03, 5 June 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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maris portrait.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader has released his photograph into the public domain, but the photograph is a derivative work of the portrait, which might be copyrighted. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, without evidence that the portrait itself is in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed, this image cannot be freely licensed. In addition, without the identity of the author of the portrait, the sourcing of this image is inadequate. We also can't fix this image by switching to a non-free license tag, as this image is being used in the article to identify the subject of the portrait, not the portrait itself. —RP88 ^(talk) 09:19, 5 June 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Screenshot? Although if as claimed it's the uploaders mod this WOULD be PD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am the uploader, and I thought it was clear that I had uploaded the screenshot and indicated that I had released it into the public domain. TDW ✉ 19:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You did not make it clear that you created the software and worked for the Devolition Corporation, although normally the employer own the copyright. You need some sort of evidence that the Devolition Corporation passed the copyright to you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry but I don't have a document available to prove that Devolition Corporation passed the copyright to me. All I can say is that Severin Hanson, the director of the modification, gave me permission to start a Wikipedia article. Albeit this wasn't fully achieved when this happened, quite a while ago. If it makes any consolation, here's a link to the forum topic, "Wikipedia Article". I will remove the image otherwise. TDW ✉ 10:21, 7 June 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image has been copied from http://www.fairdealproperties.com.mt/AboutMalta.aspx, and there's no evidence that it has been released under the GFDL and CC licenses. Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Image is a common map, it is not copyrighted. Alan347 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the source website has All Rights Reserved (2007) on it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan347, we need evidence of that. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:52, 5 June 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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angelik Caruana's weeping statue of Our Lady.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image has been copied from http://www.borgin-nadur.org/mt/bidu.php, which states "© Copyright 2009, Ċenaklu Theotokos - Kull dritt riservat". The uploader hasn't provided any evidence that the image has been released under a free license. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:04, 5 June 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 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rod Laver 001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: there is no evidence the author has given permission. Source, which is actually an untinted version, shows a copyright notice on the webpage http://www.australianhistory.org/sport-ach.php even though the images are stated to be public domain which I doubt. Even if tinted by the uploader, it a derivative work that retains the same copyright as the original. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Right below the three images on that page at australianhistory.org, the page says "The images used on this page are free for public use; these are in the public domain or copyright has expired." Presumably the copyright notice at the bottom of the page refers to page's text. Whether or not australianhistory.org can be trusted as a reliable source of a public domain assertion is a separate issue, of course. —RP88 ^(talk) 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I very much doubt the statement about the images being public domain is true because according to Australian copyright, images are copyright for a minimum of 70 years, so even if this is a 1962 image it is still in copyright. There is no source information nor any author listed. Most likely this is a press image but that is just my thought. Tineye shows two other copies and there are a few others that are copies of this one but none helps clarify the copyright. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've edited your original nomination to include a note about the public domain statement, my first reply looks kind of silly :-) On a more serious note, I haven't been able to track down the photographer or date of this image. If it was taken before 1 January 1955, it is out of copyright (prior to the 2005 amendment of Austrialia's copyright act, photos had a copyright term of 50 years from creation and the 2005 amendment did not restore copyright to those that expired prior to the adoption of the act). Where did you get the date of 1962? Are you just assuming the photo was from when he participated in a Grand Slam tournament? Nonetheless, I do agree that without these details this image will have to go. —RP88 ^(talk) 15:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did not intend to make your first reply look silly. I assumed, not always a good idea, that the image comes from a Grand Slam and I thought the earliest was 1962, but actually it is 1960. Also the image looks like it may have been taken at such an event especially as a search for Wimbledon/Laver images have similar style backgrounds, but that may be the case for all tennis players at tournaments. However, I doubt that such an image as this one would have been taken pre-1955. ww2censor (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be 1968 at Wimbledon it looks very similar to the photo agency/getty images taken then (branded racket, black stripe on socks). The 1962 shot does not show a branded Dunlop racket. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original uploader and colorizerand age-wise it doesn't look like Laver in '62...it looks later to me. Is wiki all of a sudden getting more strict on the images as I seem to have had a bunch under the microscope lately? Some have just been uploaded and some like this Laver image has been here quite awhile. I took the Australian history site at its word that the image is in the public domain. I see an awful lot of images of tennis players where wiki takes people at their word that "they" took the picture that they post on flickr... how is this really different? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also at the very least this image would fall under Template:Non-free_unsure in the Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline of wikipedia. It is vital to the Rod Laver bio page and the Grand Slam page (which are the only pages that use it). I feel that the Australian history page disclaimer should be enough but if the authorities at wikipedia think elsewise then please change it's status using the rational use guideline. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 5 June 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.