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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paddy Kiskeam O'Connor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyvio and unused. [1]. Mikemoral♪♫ 03:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as orphan. Cnilep (talk) 21:12, 20 March 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⚡ 04:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bagsby and Rongey of Xen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possible copyvio: [2] Mikemoral♪♫ 03:46, 20 March 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wheel2000image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• TV screenshot of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as orphan. Cnilep (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphaned with no encylcopedic use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously from the TV--Effingcrazy (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Effingcrazy[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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mystery Mine (Logo).JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo- Although situated on a building so FoP applies? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The logo itself is too simple for copyright and would fall under ((PD-textlogo)). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete copy of [3] — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:16, 21 March 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.

Removed from two-liter bottle, tagged as non-free cover for use in Tanora. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Copyrighted packaging IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relicense to fair use in Tanora; remove from two-liter bottle. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepper stifle. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:17, 21 March 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyberdog shop - 2007.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Stated as copyrighted to Steffen Rasmussen. This file has been moved to Commons and then marked as missing a permission. Eusebius (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete replaceable copyrighted image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:18, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged with ((PD-USGov-Interior-NPS)). — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starting point of Little stony man nature trail.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Poster - No indication uploader is creator of poster/ or that poster is in PD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an official sign in a U.S. National park. As such, it should be in the public domain per ((PD-USGov-Interior-NPS)). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep retag per IronGargoyle — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:19, 21 March 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rockland sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 2D artowork - US does not have FOP for 2D art... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I took this photo, is there anything I can do? It seems like fair use of a photograph taken of a public structure. The image on the sign itself isn't precisely 2D, either. -ClockworkLunch (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but no. The town owns the copyright to that sign and, unless they release those rights under a compatible license, the image must go. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm... You didn't answer the question. :-) Sfan00's question was whether the image qualifies as Fair Use, not Free Use. You explained how it might be unfree (depending on its date of creation and copyright notice requirements being met if required), but not why it wouldn't qualify as Fair Use within the Rockland, Maine article. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 10:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not sure how this really differs from the Bottle House plaque or even the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign. The Rockland sign is designed for one main purpose: to promote Rockland. As with any tourist sign, it's expected that people will take photos of it, and by doing so, help promote the town. I doubt that the sign is from 1848 when the town was founded, but it may well predate the more stringent copyright laws, thus without a copyright notice, it would not be covered (at least as I understand from the discussion on the Las Vegas sign). At most, only the artistic element of the lighthouse on the blocks could be copyrighted (ordinary words cannot unless they form a unique body of work), so the image could be cropped, but that would pretty much destroy the quality of the image. Finally, the image should qualify under Fair Use with an appropriate FURG added, right? —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 10:22, 1 April 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• US freedom of panorama doesnt extend to art IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't the fact this is on public land allow for its fair use? -ClockworkLunch (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The NFCC for Wikipedia require that a copyrighted image not be replaceable. As anyone can take a picture of this memorial, it is replaceable by such a free image and the image is not allowed. If this image were not replaceable (i.e. the memorial was destroyed), then we could talk about it, but as it stands, it cannot. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete copyrighted, replaceable image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:32, 31 March 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The names of the creator and the uploader are different. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per tineye search — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No one knows where this realy came from--Effingcrazy (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Effingcrazy[reply]
• Delete per tineye. --Mikemoral♪♫ 18:48, 28 March 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 DarkFalls (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Copyvio, I believe the PokeBall designs are copyrighted by Nintendo. Mikemoral♪♫ 17:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I would like to add a simple PokeBall design would be classified under simple geometry, much like File:Wikiball.svg. However, an array of pokeballs like the image would have to follow US fair use and copyright laws. --Mikemoral♪♫ 17:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unless an appropriate FUR can be found. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:22, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ultrapar.Brand.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another improbable claim of user creation by Edson Rosa. He says he created the image and releases it to public domain but probably took it from a company source. Probably not public domain, since it contains a logo. Cnilep (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, the upload process is woefully inadequate. The logo merely needs a FUR. I will happily add it, but I also don't want to alter the image for discussion purposes. Please contact me via talk page to correct/add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:25, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redecard.Brand.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another improbable claim of user creation by Edson Rosa. He says he created the image and releases it to public domain but probably took it from a company source. Probably not public domain, since it contains a logo. Cnilep (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, the upload process is woefully inadequate. The logo merely needs a FUR. I will happily add it, but I also don't want to alter the image for discussion purposes. Please contact me via talk page to correct/add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:26, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabesps.a.2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another improbable claim of user creation by Edson Rosa. He says he created the image and releases it to public domain but probably took it from a company source. Probably not public domain, since it contains a logo. Cnilep (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, the upload process is woefully inadequate. The logo merely needs a FUR. I will happily add it, but I also don't want to alter the image for discussion purposes. Please contact me via talk page to correct/add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:26, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another improbable claim of user creation by Edson Rosa. He says he created the image and releases it to public domain but probably took it from a company source. Probably not public domain, since it contains a logo. Cnilep (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, the upload process is woefully inadequate. The logo merely needs a FUR. I will happily add it, but I also don't want to alter the image for discussion purposes. Please contact me via talk page to correct/add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:29, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Another improbable claim of user creation by Edson Rosa. He says he created the image and releases it to public domain but probably took it from a company source. Probably not public domain, since it contains a logo. Cnilep (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, the upload process is woefully inadequate. The logo merely needs a FUR. I will happily add it, but I also don't want to alter the image for discussion purposes. Please contact me via talk page to correct/add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:29, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grupo-votorantim.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another improbable claim of user creation by Edson Rosa. He says he created the image and releases it to public domain but probably took it from a company source. This may be deemed public domain logo if the blue triangle is judged to be the letter V, but I'm not convinced. Cnilep (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough to consider this a copyrightable logo (namely the shading, but thanks for noting the difference!). The upload process is woefully inadequate. The logo merely needs a FUR. I will happily add it, but I also don't want to alter the image for discussion purposes. Please contact me via talk page to correct/add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:31, 21 March 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.

Tagged as ((non-free logo)), rationale for use in Majlis Perbandaran Muar only. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MPMuar Logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyvio: [4] Mikemoral♪♫ 18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Might qualify as fair use on Majlis Perbandaran Muar, but needs FUR and proper documentation of source. Cnilep (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cnilep has this one spot on. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:32, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo ethbioenergia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another improbable claim of user creation by Edson Rosa. He says he created the image and releases it to public domain but probably took it from a company source. Probably not public domain, since it contains a logo. Cnilep (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, the upload process is woefully inadequate. The logo merely needs a FUR. I will happily add it, but I also don't want to alter the image for discussion purposes. Please contact me via talk page to correct/add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:33, 21 March 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 discussion was: keep. File tagged as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marfrig Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another improbable claim of user creation by Edson Rosa. He says he created the image and releases it to public domain but probably took it from a company source. Probably not public domain, since it contains a logo. Cnilep (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, the upload process is woefully inadequate. The logo merely needs a FUR. I will happily add it, but I also don't want to alter the image for discussion purposes. Please contact me via talk page to correct/add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:33, 21 March 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.

Kept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Author james rollins 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Abigor (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Query. Is there a reason for this listing? IronGargoyle (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone also uploaded it to nlwp. So we check if it's suitable to be moved to Commons. This image is not because it's missing permission. multichill (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am guilty of uploading it to nlwp as the permissions seemed ok. Now that permission is under discussion here and on the Dutch wp. So I contacted the photographer, who again gave permission to use it by mail. What do you need to formalise this? Must he send an e-mail to a certain address? Not really an experienced user regarding uploaded pictures I'm afraid. Viv3210 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What permission is needed? Looks like a perfect case of ((pd-self))? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no rationale for deletion or retagging. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- Personally knowing both the author James Rollins and the photographer David, I vouch that David knows James, regularly takes photos of James for exactly this purpose, and holds the copyright to his own works. So while I was not present to see David take James' photo, I have no doubt that he in fact did. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I recommended to the photographer that he should file a formal claim of ownership through OTRS to avoid any future concerns. I also explained to him that, while somewhat distressing, this process helps to ensure that the rights of photographers like him are protected against unauthorized use. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 09:55, 1 April 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.

Arms presumably date from 1619 as noted by BQZip01, so ((PD-art)) seems appropriate here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belmonte Arms- Granito impaling Pignatelli with Pavilion.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Probably not the uploader's work. Coats of Arms have to be recreated to be licensed freely (someone holds the copyright to this recreation). Blurpeace 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the uploader's work. I created the work, uploaded the content, and am happy for it to be openly available on Wikipedia. Aquilachrysaetos (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the crest itself was created in 1619 (correct me if I'm wrong) and is ((pd-1923-abroad)). — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:36, 21 March 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PI5Send1.Jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader of this photo is not the author of the photo, and there's no evidence that the author has released the photo under this license. The supplied source information also appears incorrect. The photo appears to be a standard publicity photo, and it can be seen for example on the author's Amazon page, on press releases (for example UFO expert to speak, 2nd photo in the slideshow at upper right) and on the back cover of his 2005 book Top Secret/Majic (2nd edition). The back cover is visible on Google Books here. The photo is attributed on the back cover to Seth Shostak. In contrast, the uploaded image is claimed to date from 2008 and to be authored by Stanton Friedman, who is also the subject of the photo. AllenS (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete copyrighted image that is replaceable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:38, 21 March 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.