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⚡ 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebrahim Pourdavoud.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Questionable sourcing. I strongly doubt this image is user-made. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The image is not user-made!!! The image is the personal property of the person I have explicitly named (namely fa:User:Niabehzad --- this is the original source file) on the page at issue, i.e. here. On the original page on Persian Wikipedia, the person introduces himself as the owner of the image and releases the image to public domain because he so desires. Now User:Milburn, please tell us where your "strong" "doubt" is based on? And, where do you have the term "user-made" from? There is nowhere any mention of "user-made", leading me to suspect that you just made the term up to advance your cause. There is a fundamental difference between "I, the copyright holder", and "I, the maker". Will you have the courage to apologise for so ungentlemanly casting doubt on the integrity of my statement? In any case, you must certainly tell us what is "questionable" about the sourcing. Incidentally, the photograph at issue was days ago considered by User:Feydey, and he had no problem with it (he was briefly confused by mistaking the date of my upload by the date of the release of the image, the copyright statement with which I had originally uploaded the image to English Wikipedia being PD-Iran --- see here). --BF 03:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the image was not made by Niabehzad, then we're definitely going to need an explanation of why it belongs to him, and why he has the right to release it into the public domain... There is a serious lack of information on this file. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is utter madness! The person, Niabehzad, says that he is the copyright holder (consult his copyright statement on Persian Wikipedia). Who are we to say that he is not telling the truth? Above all, I have been after a proper photograph of Pourdavoud's for years and there was none to be found anywhere until I recently by chance found it on Persian Wikipedia (the image is uploaded there on 15 September 2009). It follows that Niabehzad cannot have copied it from somewhere and passed it on as his own, for in that case I must have known the source. In my opinion, Niabehzad is a member of Pourdavoud's family: "Niabehzad" is in fact "Behzad-Nia", a Zoroastrian name and one of the most pure Persian names that there is. This conforms with the background of Pourdavouds (already the "Pour" in Pourdavoud makes the name also a pure Persian name) who named his daughter Pourandokht, the name of a Sassanid Queen. --BF 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drop the speculation. Who is the author of the image, and why does the uploader have the right to release this to the public domain? J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go and put your question to Niabehzad! Everyone is free to place his/her family photographs in public domain. Actually, Pourdavoud having died more than 42 years ago, all his photographs presently in public domain fall under PD-Iran, which recognises copyrights on photographs only for 30 years. But this is not relevant here. --BF 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not actually how it works, in either case. Photos generally belong to the photographer, not to the subject or the subject's family. Unless some answers are forthcoming here, this image will need to be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is a family photograph. If it is taken by a professional, he has sold his right by selling his labour to the persons who commissioned him to take the picture. Be it as it may, the issue will have to be taken up, it at all, by the administrators of Persian Wikipedia. I have merely transferred the photograph to here and given its source and copyright status as recorded at Persian Wikipedia. The uploader there, a registered Wikipedia editor, has introduced himself as "the copyright holder". If you think that he lies, then go and take him to court. I you have no reason for doing so, you have also no reason to cast doubt on the validity of the copyright statement as it is. The undeniable fact is that this very photograph is not to be found in any form and anywhere on the Internet, except on Persian Wikipedia, and since some days here on English Wikipedia. It follows that the photograph has never been in public domain, in any form (such as on the back of a book cover, and the like), so that it must necessarily originate from a family album. By the available evidence, the album is a family album of Niabehzad. --BF 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • See WP:Original research, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • In copyright matters we operate on the principle of precaution. We cannot assume the picture was taken as a work for hire unless this is explicitly demonstrated to be so. And while the English Wikipedia may not have a direct influence on how the Persian one handles their copyright verifications, we most definitely will deal with any uploads according to our policies and practices. Delete per precautionary principle. MLauba (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks more like a case for ((sofixit)) on the mistagging, to be honest. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "mistagging"? I have used the exact tag as Niabehzad has used, and in a footnote have even pointed out that "I" in "I, the copyright holder" refers to Niabehzad. We have no reason to believe the copyright statement of Niabehzad to be false. --BF 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "I" tag should only be used when the author and uploader are the same person. The tag for when someone else releases it is ((PD-release)). Stifle (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a technicality on which I am not qualified to comment, however in my statement I made explicit who "I" represented, thereby removing the possibility that I be considered as the coipyright holder (I simply used the English equivalent of the tag that Niabehzad has used). --BF 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The image is a professional image and has a structure, it looks scanned. Without further evidence (date, place where it was taken by the supposed author) I must say it looks like it was uploaded by an inexperienced user on fa.wikipedia.org - he/she edited only a few times in September 2009 there and added no info other than a free license tag to the original image page. However, if it could be proven to have been taken and published in Iran then it would be free because images from there only attract 30 years of copyright in the country itself after being published and Iran has no copyright relations with the U.S., as described in Wikipedia:Public domain#Countries without copyright treaties with the U.S. However, unless information is provided we should come down on the side of caution, as MLauba said. That he is from Iran and died so long ago should make finding a free image very likely in principle anyway. Hekerui (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the image has been taken inside Iran and by my knowledge of the plantation inside Iran, it has been more specifically taken somewhere in Gilan: the leaves visible in the image, are leaves of an orange tree (compare the leaves here with those here), a tree that is found in abundance in Gilan. It is relevant to know that Pourdavoud was a native of Gilan. Further, to my best knowledge, with the exception of a number of short travels abroad (to India for instance), Pourdavoud lived the second part of his life entirely inside Iran (in younger years, he stayed for longer periods in Germany, where he studied Iranology and ancient languages). Incidentally, as can be verified (start here), I originally uploaded the image with PD-Iran as the copyright tag. --BF 23:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have said at length, we do not know the photographer of this image, nor do we know if it was ever published. As such, without further information, PD-Iran cannot apply. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no proof that the image has been published in Iran more than 30 years ago, we can't use the ((PD-Iran)). But as the uploader in Persian wikipedia has introduced himself as the image owner, and there is no other copy of the same image in internet, there is no reason for deletion. Even the tineye reverse search engine, shows that user Niabehzad in Persian Wikipedia has been the first person to upload this photo. There is only one more copy of this image through out the internet (according to tineye) and that is of much lower quality and smaller size. There is no reason to delete this image. Only the copyright tag should be replaced with ((PD-user|username)). --Wayiran (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye is incredibly unreliable. The fact the image does appear elsewhere on the web is cause for concern. Call it a nose for it if you will, but this image does not add up- it really does not fit the usual characteristics for an old family photo- instead, it fits the "here's an image I found somewhere and I don't really care/understand about the copyrights". However, even if it was an old family photo, we have no concrete author information. Merely being related to someone who took a picture does not make it yours. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see nothing that shows the image to be anything but a family photo that a user uploaded. Just because it "looks" good doesn't mean it isn't what the uploader claims it to be. If there is something more concrete, then let's hear it, but "I doubt it" doesn't hack it for logic. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't actually operate a "it's public domain until proven otherwise" policy, nice though that may sound. J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As an admin on fawiki and commons i was invited here to share my thought , actually i feel this image is copyright infringement but just to make things sure , i am going to ask upload for more evidence i will send both email and i ask him his user talk to get more information , btw if this debate has take a long time here you can move it commons , there i will try to fix issue or if you can wait please wait at least 3-7 days before deleting --Mardetanha ^talk 18:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a fellow admin on Commons, I am alarmed you think we should just throw this out to Commons for the time being. This is fairly clearly a copyvio. If no further information is forthcoming, it should be deleted, and even if further image is forthcoming, it should be carefully considered. J Milburn (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comments above and seeing that no information is forthcoming. Hekerui (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image can be deleted now , no response came from uploader in fawiki --Mardetanha ^talk 15:23, 15 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 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Type IXc Reynaga.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User claims it is his own work. However, it appears to be a scan of the box cover of a model. In this case, the art would by copyrighted, and this would be a copyvio. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence to assume bad faith?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say assume bad faith. Looking into it deeper http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/misc/ships/rey79.htm it was modeled by the wikipedia user who uploaded it. It seems to have been made 1970s so it would fall within the 50 year general japanese copyright range. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs

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⚡ 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mian meer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like a scan of a printed work and suspect that the uploader considers the scan to be his own work. To me this looks like a non-free file and doubt very much that the uploader was the original artist. Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • This file should absolutely be free. The picture is of a great saint of 16th century and He is no longer alive. Regardless of Muslims or non-Muslims His books, poetry and pictures are open to use for all. It is tradition of Muslim saints that their everything goes to public in their lives or after their death. So, there is no reason to apply copyright laws. I am Muslim and I request to all muslims and non-muslims to disagree with deletion proposal of this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.39.48 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tradition doesn't absolve us of copyright laws. I have to agree the image appears to be a scanned in image (perhaps a composite of other images). Without a source, it should be removed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For sure, it image is SCANNED one, but I see this image is widely being used over the web without any claim or source(see tineye). I think the up-loader of the image is naive about copyrights because the same case is with this user's User:Luckyaim few other images File:Abdul Qadir Gilani.JPG and File:Jillani shrine.jpg. However, the images don't have copyrights issues anywhere on the web. So the deletion issue should be dealt carefully. I don't think there is any copyright problem. Futuristindicator (talk) 14:32, 9 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 Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdul Qadir Gilani.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Given it's size and image quality this looks like a low resolution scan of a painting, possibly trawled from the web. Uploader maintains it to be his/her own work. I doubt it. Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • This file should absolutely be free. The picture is of a great saint of 16th century and He is no longer alive. Regardless of Muslims or non-Muslims His books, poetry and pictures are open to use for all. It is tradition of Muslim saints that their everything goes to public in their lives or after their death. So, there is no reason to apply copyright laws. I am Muslim and I request to all muslims and non-muslims to disagree with deletion proposal of this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.39.48 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again For sure, it image is SCANNED one, but I see this image is widely being used over the web without any claim or source(see tineye). I think the up-loader of the image is naive about copyrights because the same case is with this user's User:Luckyaim few other images File:Mian Meer.JPG and File:Jillani shrine.jpg. However, the images don't have copyrights issues anywhere on the web. So the deletion issue should be dealt carefully. I don't think there is any copyright problem. Futuristindicator (talk) 14:36, 9 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⚡ 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jillani shrine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Watermarked image in arabic script, uploader professes this to be their own work. It's a small, low resolution image. Looks like a web trawl. Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • This file should absolutely be free. The picture is of a grave of a great saint of 16th century and He is no longer alive. The building is under historical building laws. Regardless of Muslims or non-Muslims everyone visits His shrine. Because it is historical building, so, there is no reason to apply copyright laws. I am Muslim and I request to all muslims and non-muslims to disagree with deletion proposal of this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.39.48 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Again, this is not an issue of the building, but the photo itself. Pictures of the structure can certainly be PD, but this one is eligible for copyright in the US and that is all that matters. I think dragging your religion into this does it a disservice. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AGAIN For sure, it image is SCANNED one, but I see this image is widely being used over the web without any claim or source(see tineye). I think the up-loader of the image is naive about copyrights because the same case is with this user's User:Luckyaim few other images File:Abdul Qadir Gilani.JPG and File:Mian Meer.jpg. However, the images don't have copyrights issues anywhere on the web. So the deletion issue should be dealt carefully. I don't think there is any copyright problem.Futuristindicator (talk) 14:37, 9 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 Flyguy649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sultan Bahoo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a scanned image, low resolution (paper deformation can be seen), I suspect this to be an example of the uploader thinking the scan itself is considered to be their work. Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:55, 4 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⚡ 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hafiz Faiz Sultan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low quality, watermarked photo of a framed picture. Unlikely to be the uploader's own art. Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • This file should absolutely be free. The picture is of a great saint of 20th century and He is no longer alive. Regardless of Muslims or non-Muslims His books, poetry and pictures are open to use for all. It is tradition of Muslim saints that their everything goes to public in their lives or after their death. So, there is no reason to apply copyright laws. I am Muslim and I request to all muslims and non-muslims to disagree with deletion proposal of this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.39.48 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This image was likely made after 1950 (given the photograph color quality). As such, it is eligible for copyright protections in the U.S. If this man is such a great saint, he should have an article about him (In which case a FUR could be applied). In this case it is a copyrighted photo not used in any article and needs to go. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with User:BQZip01. The image is quite old, thus, doesn't has any problem with copyrights. As far as articles about the saint are concerned, I think there are still many things or people which are unique or great (in their respective capacity) but still out of range of web or they can't have access to the web. Take such matters separately as religious issues relate to public sentiments. If the image is old than the copyright (see Non-commercial licenses) is not applied. Futuristindicator (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the image has this Flickr source which, if it is to be believed, has an Wikipedia-incompatible non-commercial licence and is sourced to a different user, so the PD claim made by the uploader is false. ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 15 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⚡ 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emam-005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: Uploader's claim to be copyright holder is likely false because this image is found on several websites by tineye. ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Link to tineye? — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye result. Too hard? ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Too hard?" So to speak?
2. "Query expired. The original search image has been discarded." I've never used tineye except on WP links. It would probably be a GREAT idea to include this as a standard link for images here or at WP:FFD. I went ahead and used the search engine on the image and it appears to be EVERYWHERE. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since several other websites claim copyright on said image: Delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image, in its current low resolution format, is in the public domain, and no copyright is enforceable or indeed exists under any such laws.

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⚡ 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Green Path of Hope.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: uploader likely does not own the right to copyright of this orphaned flag image. ww2censor (talk) 18:16, 4 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⚡ 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A watermarked (MEHR) pro looking photo. Source given as the MEHR News Agency yet the uploader licensed it with a Creative Commons license. Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What Fred said. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: clearly a copyright image from here with copyright notice on page. ww2censor (talk) 06:56, 11 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 Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebert-and-wife.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image is suspicious and appears to be a copyright violation. The uploader claims they took it themselves at the 2010 BAFTA awards. However, the award Ebert and his wife are holding is the Honorary Life Member Award he received in January at the Directors Guild of America Awards. This is specified here: [1]. There also appears to be no metadata for this image. The uploader has at least one other copyright issue warning on their talk page for an image that was later deleted. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's from Wireimage, see http://www.celebritywonder.com/picture/Roger_Ebert/FilmCriticRo_Granitz_56622817.html. It was taken in Jan 2009, and it's definitely non-free. Fences&Windows 23:12, 4 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⚡ 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Left side.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's hard to believe that a shot that looks so promotional as this is given away under a CC license. Exif data is not too revealing. The website given in the summary has a full copyright statement. I leave it to more knowledgeable folks than me to decide. Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor has uploaded a duplicate of this file as File:Toyota 8-Series 4 Wheel Electric.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both. Source claims copyright. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:07, 7 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⚡ 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LHCG Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Home-made map but featuring 7 non-free copyrighted company logos. Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 6 of the 7 logos are exclusively text or simple shapes (((pd-textlogo)) would apply to them). The last one includes an image of a ram I swear I've seen elsewhere. In any case de minimus would apply to this single portion of the image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 11:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not at all appropriate, and neither is the abuse of the "text is PD" rule... J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 9 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.