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⚡ 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BAPMAFpatronBeattieCasely-Hayford.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like a Newspaper scan ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:17, 6 November 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⚡ 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Declined speedy (tagged by another sysop): reasoning being: Google finds the original from which this was cropped. Unfortunately, espn.go doesn't seem to host that image anymore, but in any case, this here looks like a clear copyvio of someone else's image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Full image still exists here. Cropped image can also be found here. Lupo 08:23, 9 November 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⚡ 06:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue News.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be some sort of screenshot of promotional photo, uploader unlikely to hold the copyright. — ξ^xplicit 03:07, 6 November 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⚡ 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Open Soul Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Album cover - Can't see how this is PD-self Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 6 November 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⚡ 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Magazine cover - Not sure how this can be PD-self? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:39, 6 November 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⚡ 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Seems to be a reflection and removal of background in Photoshop of this image. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cu Huy Ha Vu is a public Figure , "If the person is a public figure (a celebrity, a politician and the like) or is a private figure but one who is involved in a matter of public concern (a news story for instance) and in both instances the use of the photograph is directly related to the person’s public status, then the courts have said that in those instances, the right of the person to his or her privacy gives way to the public’s right to get the public information." The photo Cuhuyhavu.jpg is created by me, I don't need permission to draw a public figure as long as my created photo is not use for commercial, while the underlying art may be in the public domain and thus free to use .

Reference sources: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/photos.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuytrangnguyen (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have the right to photograph a person, that is not what I am talking about. What you cannot do is take someone else's image that they have not explicitly released under a free license, create a derivative work of that image, and then claim it to be entirely your own. Finally, Wikipedia does not accept images that are licensed for non-commercial use only. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are going too far from the word "seems" to "is" , the photo you mention above it may look like my art work because I draw the same man who wearing the same vest everyday in Hanoi (take a look of this photo (http://saigonecho.com/main/images/stories/cuhuyhavu_091010.jpg). The angle of my artwork may be same angle with the photo you mention above but the eyes, color, background don't look the same . I Am not taking someone else's image for my work, if your police's work find my artwork was created from a derivative of someone else image and are your conclusion then I have not thing else to say . This is not the first time my artwork has been called "stolen". Looks like there is not going to be an end to atrocities on people who try to help Wikipedia . My artwork of course freely distributed , licensed for non-commercial only applied to the photo of a public figure . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuytrangnguyen (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the original picture, before cropping, you will see that the proportions of space, the shirt collar, the eye expression, the position of the ear, even the green trees that have not been completely cropped out at the top are exactly the same as in the suspected photograph. It does not appear that you actually drew the work yourself, but digitally altered an existing photograph. I also still do not understand your comment about non-commercial use... If you release things into the public domain then anyone can use them for any purpose, including commercial use. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:53, 7 November 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⚡ 17:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• reason 10jasmine10 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Prestige Hong Kong and we want to upload the latest covers of our magazine. Our company owns the copyright of the files and it is ok to upload them here. Thank you.

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⚡ 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mkapspsblaertc1323427474747474hghggh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• TV title card - so not sure how this can be PD-self as claimed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:42, 6 November 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.