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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ilustratie citymall exterior.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• same as prior - not currency, dead source Skier Dude (talk 03:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 04:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting note. Removed by Twinkle bug. — ξ^xplicit 04:11, 26 September 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Finale of the play.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: there is no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder of the video recording from which this screen shot was taken. ww2censor (talk) 05:22, 26 September 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, assuming good faith. — ξ^xplicit 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DaCosta25102010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possibly a screen capture. Eeekster (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Took it yesterday before the match - what proof would you like? --Egghead06 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As a clue maybe you would like to check on nearly all the current images of players of West Ham. You will see they are nearly all my work and none of them are screen dumps!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, it looks like a straight digital photo to me, rather than a screen capture. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not much discussion here! Don't see what else I can say - I was there , I took the photo, I can completely guarantee it is my own work on my own camera in my own time and not ripped off from the TV screen!--Egghead06 (talk) 06:17, 2 October 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider-1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Says "created this work entirely by myself", which seems unlikely as it is looks a screen capture -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has no license, marked for deletion. Acather96 (talk) 09:38, 9 October 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial Denver colorado.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims he took the photo, but then attributes it to a photography company. A look at the company's website reveals similar photos. Acather96 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ena to xelidoni.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Compliation of possibly unfree files. Acather96 (talk) 10:07, 26 September 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samantha-John-Skype.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Skype Screenshot Eeekster (talk) 10:17, 26 September 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poster Melbourne street art CBD September 2010.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image of poster. Eeekster (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Get real, how is this image less free than any other image of public street art? Nick carson (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is an image of the street art, not an image of something else where street art is visible. (For examples see File:Voie sans issue Clet Abraham Florence.jpg, File:Karltoon.jpg, File:Hannibalvector.jpg and File:Obama progress street art.jpg) Can it be established that the artist released this work into PD? Or if the painting itself has fallen into PD? (Doubtful - it appears too new) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old-Karr-Email.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Screenshot of an email not written by the uploader. Bilby (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The uploader has named the authors, so this looks like a BLP issue too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 26 September 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.

((PD-art)) says what it says. Cropping does not seem relevant as that could be raised in every case that we use PD-art tags as each and every one of them has been cropped. The other issues raised - what is it supposed to be? where is it? - seem more appropriate to Talk:Arius. When resolved there, someone can send this to FFD if need be and give one or more of "orphaned, low quality, unencyclopedic" as the rationale. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arius portrait image for article.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a courtesy listing. I have declined the speedy deletion of the image under "replaceable fair use" because I'm not sure that it is "fair use" at all. The image contains conflicting tags, and I think that the one that declares it public domain may be more accurate, though I cannot be sure of that as I have not found information on original source. (I scanned what I could see of the book, but while I've confirmed that the cover image is PD, I didn't see this one.) It is possible that this is a contemporary portrait that has been deliberately antiqued, but unlikely. If it turns out it is, File:Arius.gif is also going to need to go, on Commons. I'm bringing it here for review, where others may help to determine its status. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete I have no idea whether this is an exact photo of the PD portrait or not. The uploader placed both copyright/fair use and PD tags on the image. The uploader did indicate that the image was "touched up". I'm not sure what that does to the status or to its use on WP. I initially RFUed it becuase the image was listed by its uploader as copyrighted and there was an insufficient rationale. I wonder if there is not a better photo of this image that could be used to avoid all doubt. Novaseminary (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The uploader doesn't simply say it was touched up, but rather "that I touched up". If the underlying image is public domain, this representation can only be copyrighted if changes to it are substantial enough to represent new creative authorship. If the changes are substantial (it doesn't really appear so, based on a visual comparison of the woefully small version on Commons), it seems they were created by uploader. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The original source for *this* image is a book cover (Arius Heresy and Tradition). The book cover itself could be used as fair use on an article about the book, however this is a crop of the book cover. It's not the same thing. Also It doesn't matter what the "underlying image" might be in this case because this was not made from the "underlying image" itself (i.e - the original untouched source image), but a book cover. As an example look at Non Free Content - Unacceptable use - Images, number 3: A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses. This is same thing, except with a book. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To quote from National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts, "The 1999 United States District Court case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (in which Bridgeman Art Library sued the Corel Corporation for copyright infringement for distributing copies of digital reproductions of public domain paintings sourced from Bridgeman on a CD-ROM) established that 'a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original.' As a result, reproductions of works that have fallen into the public domain cannot attract any new copyright in the United States." (citations in original.) If the painting is public domain, their use of it on a book cover does not make it their copyright. In the example you cite, the rose is a new photograph; it is not analogous. The only way a PD painting can attract new copyright in the United States, which law governs us, is if it is original, in which case the protection extends to new elements, but cannot protect the original image. To quote from our article derivative work: "For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But the book cover looks to me to be a photograph of the very old painting/fresco/tapestry cropped to focus on the individual for which the book and the article were named, not an exact copy of the original entire piece of art. (Oddly, the cover was changed in the revised version of the book released one year later, ISBN 9780802849694, from the version that had this image on the cover, ISBN 0334028507.) I'm not sure we can say that the book cover from which this image was adapted is "no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits". The only thing we do seem to know with certainty is that the uploader took a book cover, removed the text and other markings that made it a book cover via image editing software (mostly, blowing it up in makes it clear how the uploader "touched up" the cover), and then uploaded it here. I'm not sure that the commons version wasn't created the same way, but based off of version of the cover here; maybe it should go, too. Novaseminary (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To Moon - we are not talking about a derivative of the original image or painting, this is a derivative of a book cover. At Wikipedia is is generally accepted users do not make derivatives of covers to illustrate something else on the cover. For example a lot of people would feel the underlying image used in File:Ted Scott Book cover 1927.jpg is PD, but the airplane could not be taken out and used by itself in an article about airplanes any more than the word "PARIS" taken out for use in an article about Paris under the guise that text alone is not copyrightable. The elephant seen on the cover of File:The-third-jungle-book-cover.jpg could not be taken because it is generic clip art freely available and used in an article about clip art. And you certainly could not take File:Jamesmayhewmonalisa.jpg and use only the face of "Mona" to illustrate the "legacy" in the Mona Lisa article. To Nova - I would also question that as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We are talking about a derivative of the original painting--the derivative book cover. The question is whether the book cover has sufficient creativity to grant it copyright protection above and beyond the painting it is using (the painting is solidly public domain; I have managed to narrow down the date of the painting thanks to the folks at the Reference Desk to the first half of the 13th century. The original is the Byzantine Museum. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Painting of Arius.) Creating a derivative work does not give you copyright over the original, of course. (User:Novaseminary, it does seem possible that the smaller image on Commons was taken from the bookcover; I'm not visual enough to tell myself. I don't know if the painting was cropped. While I've identified it, I can't find another image of it to view.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Maybe I overlooked something. I just want to be clear - we are discussing an image that is a derivative of a book cover correct? If we are discussing the actual book cover ((Arius Heresy and Tradition)) and *not* File:Arius portrait image for article.jpg than I can back track a bit. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We are discussing an image that has been based on a book cover that is derivative of a PD painting. The question is whether there is sufficient originality in the book cover for it to be protected. Per circular 14: "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable....The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Yes, I know circular 14 - I often quote from it. ;) I am waiting a response form the books publisher to see what their status of the books copyright and associated artwork is. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, but, of course, that will not necessarily resolve the question. The Jewish Encyclopedia puts copyright notices on their articles ([1], for instance), but they are still public domain. Any new content they add (if sufficiently creative) may create new copyright, but that whole "does not extend to any preexisting material" consideration is unchaged. It would be fabulously helpful to see the original. :/ Lacking that original, we might have no choice but to delete since we may not be able to verify that the image is reproduced unchanged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* If this were a photo of one small part of a larger painting of an entire church wall, would that make the photo non-PD? Per my comment/query here based on the leads brought out by the reference desk, I think it might be the wall mentioned here. I doubt it, but would the fact that the book cover's lettering and graphics are not fully excised matter? Novaseminary (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my latest comment at the reference desk, I don't think this image is of the church wall I mentioned just above. I look forward to hearing back what the publisher says. It would be quite something if this image were not of Arius at all! Novaseminary (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems to be a real possibility at this point. All those articles about Arius, wrong. :/ (The Commons image is widely used.) If the cover is a crop, it likely would make the photo not PD, since the choice of which elements to show and where to crop is creative. Even if we verify that the image is not a crop, I suspect a deletion debate on the Commons image would be a good idea. If nothing else, it is mistaken in its description of the subject, and images can't be moved on Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting off-topic from the status of this particular image, I did some research yesterday and can confirm Novaseminary's guess state that this is not the image in the Santa Maria Novella. The image from that church wall [2] is the one used on the revised cover of the book: [3] and [4]. I found one source [5][6] which states that this other picture is, in fact, an image of Arius. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wetman quite properly has moved the image off of Arius to Talk:Arius#Not_Arius. Based on the caption that this is a "detail" can we assume the image was cropped (proably substantially) from a larger fresco and delete it accordingly? I think Moonriddengirl is right, too, that the tiny commons version should be put up for deletion for the same reason. Wikicommons is outside my wiki-comfort level, though, so I hope somebody else will volunteer to do it. I still wonder what the cover designer was thinking... Maybe the same image was used on a whole paperback series or something and it was just the Arius volume that got copied to some websites which then lead to it being copied to WP? The image was changed, after all, on the revised hardcover edition that came out shortly thereafter, and never appeared on the earlier hardcover editions. Regardless, strange! Novaseminary (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good approach. We haven't found anything to indicate that it's the entire painting, and we shouldn't be making guesses about that kind of thing. Once this PuF closes (somebody else should do it, given my involvement), I'll nominate the Commons image for deletion on the double whammy of uncertain copyright status and misidentification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:28, 7 October 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An RFU tag was already placed on this image. Because of the conflicting copyright tags, however, Moonriddengirl sensibly put the file up here. I think a pretty clear consensus has developed that the image should be deleted. I don't think another posting of this image at non-free content review would be appropriate. Novaseminary (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the fair use tag which was complicating the situation. If we looked at this as a fair use situation, it would have been a much simpler matter to deal with it, as its usage plainly doesn't meet WP:NFC. The only question that needed resolving here, in my opinion, was whether the image was copyrightable, and I do think there's significant enough concern for that to warrant deletion (as above). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From the publisher: They just got back to me. The book, including it's cover, is still under copyright. The exact comments was Yes, this title is still under copyright to Canterbury Press and therefore permission must be sought before any form of reproduction. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion of that remains unchanged. As I said above, the Jewish Encyclopedia puts copyright notices on their articles ([7], for instance), but they are still public domain. More helpful would have been if they had identified the piece of art they used. However, we still don't have the entire piece and can't rule out that it is a creative crop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I must be missing something here. Per ((PD-art)), art work images are public domain, and any photographs of those images without substantial reworking are public domain. SV1's assertion above that we can't take a derivative image of a public domain work is totally and completely false; should we wish to take the image of an airplane from a PD book cover, then we could do it damned well as we please (I find it disturbing that a regular image worker has such a view of public domain) because it's public domain, and no one holds the rights to it anymore (de minimis issues aside). This is a photograph of the original work, which they put a little text around (frankly [8] strikes me as pd-ineligible]). This is no more than the ridiculous claim (thoroughly rejected by the foundation) that a French museum put on an image of the Mona Lisa because it scanned the work, put a frame around the outside, and thus claimed the inside photo couldn't be copyrighted either. As for the publisher claiming it's under copyright: of course they claim that. Their workers are doubtlessly told to say that in all circumstances; only should one of their lawyers get involved should we expect a more forthright answer (and not necessarily even then; such as when the FBI demanded Wikipedia take down its seal. If this is a derivative work with no creativity only, then we absolutely must keep this image as free.Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But we do not know "this is a derivative work with no creativity only". We think this is a crop of a larger fresco, but we don't know how much, or whether the color has been changed, or anything else creative done to it. We thought it was a photo of a painting of Arius until recently. The only thing we do know is that this was an editor's reworking (an editor who was blocked for copyright violations and who has had most of the images uploaded by that editor deleted) of a book cover that is a photo of some fresco, or part of fresco. As it is not Arius, and is not a good photo of the fresco, why would we keep it even if it were in the PD? Novaseminary (talk) 01:32, 15 October 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is a screenshot of a program which means that it's author must also agree to license it. Given how unlikely this scenario is, noting that it had it's own DRM and pay/free version scheme, it seems implausible that the program was ever GPL or PD. Furthermore, the contributor has a long history of similar misunderstandings and violations. Though this might fit the FU criteria, it still needs to be noted as non-free, even if four years have passed since it was posted. Ipatrol (talk) 20:42, 26 September 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⚡ 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chilean People.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Contains copyrighted (in part) parts from files in Commons such as File:Michelle_Bachelet_Banda.jpeg File:Arturo Prat Chacón.jpg File:Iván Zamorano.jpg File:Donfrancisco1.jpg File:Marcelo Rios 2004.jpg Well, didn't want to list them all, but most are CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, ((Attribution)), and the Allende one is PD. Anyway, I don't think it is wise to have a picture for all of them, and a collage made linking every single picture on it would be much better and problem-free for the Chilean people article. Diego Grez (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As is the case with any derivative work there needs to be explicit sources named. This is a collage of several images and unless every one of the original sources are named the overall copyright status can not be determined. As this file exists right now it does not meet the licensing requirement of the source files uncovered by Diego Grez. For example this collage is using a ((Cc-by-3.0)) license, which requires attribution, but File:Michelle Bachelet Banda.jpeg requires attribution to "Agência Brasil" and File:Iván Zamorano.jpg is PD but requires attribution be given to "Guillermo Arce F." I would be curious to know if File:Collage Chilean People.jpg was the same as this - that was deleted on Commons as "derivative work of several unfree works". Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 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.