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⚡ 01:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glacierparklodge.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image comes from http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc35824.php and the names do not match, nor the "date" match the metadata. This user has uploaded a variety of copyvios claiming they made them, but I think they are confused and equate "author" with "downloader". Aboutmovies (talk) 05:10, 21 May 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⚡ 01:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri menanti muar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader has a long history of uploading copyright violations and is currently blocked indef for doing so. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:31, 21 May 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⚡ 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GEDC0686.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Likely a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. The uploader has done the same for File:Newyoungdivas2007.jpg, File:Emily001.jpg, File:GEDC0690.JPG, File:Youngdivasonstage.jpg, File:Youngdivassing.jpg and File:Paulini2007.jpg. Bidgee (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image found on http://www.ozfiji.com and has been tagged as a copyright violation. Bidgee (talk) 09:27, 21 May 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: delete. — ξ^xplicit 02:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AmravatiUniversity1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Watermarks in image don't match up with the uploaders details Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:51, 21 May 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 licensed as non-free. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harrygregg.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image seems to have been copied from http://smb100.org/menu.php or some other website. The uploader claims that he is the copyright owner, but he hasn't provided any evidence, and one of the photographs was taken 40-60 years ago. Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it as i'm not exactly sure what copyright fits it. The image is used on several unconnected websites and is essentially the combining together of two different pictures that are used on more unrelated websites. Seeing as the picture and its component pictures are being used by various different sites - what do i select as its copyright?? Mabuska (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Uploading images. First of all, you need to state where both of the images come from and what their copyright status is. If they are not released under a free license (which they most likely aren't), then you need to include a fair-use rationale and an image copyright tag on the description page. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks so its still useable then if it meets those criteria then? Delete it in the meantime and when i can i'll try to get it up properly Mabuska (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right i've edited the pictures file page with a fair-use rationale and copyrighted material tag as well. Is the image okay now? Northern Star ^(talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything looks good now. Thanks! :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So does that mean i can remove the disputed image warning notice on the image page? Northern Star ^(talk) 22:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't think it matters if you do it or the closing admin. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:09, 26 May 2010 (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⚡ 14:36, 3 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 discussion was: delete. — ξ^xplicit 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vijay Actor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image has been copied from http://www.chennaivision.com/newsdetails.php?id=2336, and there's no evidence that User:Epabhith is the copyright owner of the photo. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:16, 21 May 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. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PICASSO Le pigeon aux petits pois 1911.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There's been a slow edit war over a tag on this and I think it merits wider discussion. I believe the argument is that there is no evidence of publication before 1923 as opposed to creation. I have no opinion on the matter, but I think it's worth a discussion... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I could be kept as a nonfree image if the resolution is reduced. For us to keep the high-res version we need evidence of publication (i.e. distribution of copies to the public) before 1923. Right now there's no evidence of when it was published. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The standard is publication or public presentation. Picasso already had a great artistic stature in 1911. It is inconceivable that this work (one of his most famous) would not have been exhibited until 1923 (cf. Chicago Picasso). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not true. (Repasting my comments from an earlier discussion of other Picasso works, which were closed as delete/reduce resolution.) Under section 101 of the 1976 copyright act, "public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Here's what my IP textbook says: "Another problem involves the exhibition of a one-of-a-kind work of art. If an artist makes such a work available for viewing by the public at large, and if the work lacks a copyright notice, the usual question arises as to whether the work has been injected into the public domain. On general principles the answer should be no. The artist has not really relinquished control of the work, nor has he or she taken the final steps toward exploiting the work economically--namely the preparation of the multiple copies for sale. [One 1907 Supreme Court case created ambiguity about this, but in] drafting the 1976 Act Congress eliminated the ambiguity and made it clear that mere public exhibition or display of the work does not constitute a publication." Nimmer, the author of probably the most influential copyright treatise, wrote that publication is "when by consent of the copyright owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur." Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, the 1976 copyright act removed ambiguity for works published or exhibited in public after 1976. The 1970 Chicago Picasso case, however, was quite clear (and all the Chicago Picasso lacked was a copyright notice). The law has been revised since then (in 1976), sure, but it didn't retroactively restore copyright on something that was already in the public domain--just like it didn't restore copyright on the Chicago Picasso again. Let me also quote back what you said with my emphasis: "publication is 'when by consent of the copyright owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public, or when an authorized offer is made to dispose of the work in any such manner even if a sale or other such disposition does not in fact occur.'" You have just said, in effect, that this is publication. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Many Picasso images were previously deleted after this PUF nomination. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Which was three years ago, and incorrectly done. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:58, 27 May 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 as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ucb theatre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Removing a photo I took. Olv 26 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs).

• reason 212.187.8.197 (talk) 13:12, 22 May 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.