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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clint Eastwood Fistful of Dollars.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Fistful of Dollars (Per un pugno di dollari) was produced by Jolly Film who registered the US copyright for the film on 12 September 1964 under number LF0000000005. They have renewed that registration on 16 March 1992 under number RE0000581079. The above information was retrieved on the US Copyright Office Records, http://www.copyright.gov/records/. The film and its contents are copyrighted to them for 95 years after 1964 (expiring on 1 January 2060). The film is a US work because its copyright was first registered (equivalent to publication in US law) in the country. (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.") Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Film is an Italian production company and the films were shot in Italy. Show me the proof that Jolly Film is American..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need (or rather it is moot) to show them as an American company; the fact is that they registered the film for US copyright and that is before its release in Italy, that qualifies it as a US work and has 95 years of US copyright protection. Jappalang (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, its strange because Leone did not make an agreement with the Americans until the second movie when United Artists bought the films. I find it odd that the US copyright would have been given even before the Italian film was released. We could really do with an article on Jolly Film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Film might have an intention to release the film in the US themselves or through a selected agent (hence, their registration of the copyright). It does not matter that they did not release it; in the eyes of the law, they have stated and staked their copyright claim, and very likely United Artists bought the license to distribute the films in the US later from them. Jappalang (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As it stands right now these are not licensed correctly and should be deleted as a copyvio. The Wikipedia source actually says they are frame grabs from the DVD, which is not a PD version of the film in any case. If these were to be kept they would have to be re-tagged as non-free content, however the English Wikipedia article already uses File:Fistful Macaroni.jpg in the infobox and there is no need to use other non-free content and would most likely fail the criteria for being included. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per evidence not in PD. feydey (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sophie kerr 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader does not make a credible claim of being the author of this image: it looks pretty old, is of a professional quality, and the EXIF states that the image was created in 2004. Finally, the uploader, User:Washingtoncollege says "I am employed by and represent the Office of College Relations at Washington College." So, yeah, this is bogus GFDL release. GrapedApe (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2011 (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastwood Good Bad and the Ugly.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo) was produced by PEA (Produzioni Europee Associate) who registered the US copyright for the film on 23 December 1966 under number LF0000000021. They have renewed that registration on 19 September 1994 under number RE0000674687. The above information was retrieved on the US Copyright Office Records, http://www.copyright.gov/records/. The film and its contents are copyrighted to the copyright claimant, Alberto Grimaldi Productions, SA (PWH), for 95 years after 1966 (expiring on 1 January 2062). The film is a US work because its copyright was first registered (equivalent to publication in US law) in the country. (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.") Jappalang (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image should be kept under fair use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think under the NFCC discussions so far, it could be conceivable as fair use identification for the character article The Man with No Name itself, but I think there is no critical analysis of this image to qualify its use in Clint Eastwood. Jappalang (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody make a smaller version of this image and use it under fair use?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 24 February 2011 (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⚡ 21:12, 25 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kathmandu-collage.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• First two outside sources http://www.catmando.com/ and http://www.planetware.com/ have "all rights reserved" as their licenses. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:03, 24 February 2011 (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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused image of a personal letter. Marked a no copyright as it is an "official document" however there isn't any license tag along with it. Beyond that there is not a clear indication that the person who this letter was sent to is also the uploader and Wikipedia does not allow private correspondence to be uploader without permission. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:For a Few Dollars More 1965 finale.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:GBU supporting cast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:GBUshots.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Marianne Koch.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:For a Few Dollars More1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Fistfuldollarsvolante.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:GBUBlowbridgebattlefield.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Buono Brutto Cattivo head titles.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

• Series of collages of frame grabs of copyrighted films, many from current DVD's. These are all marked as public domain, severaltaken from the Italian Wikipedia. The argument is all of these Clint Esatwood/Sergio Leone films are public domain because they were published "before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities" and "was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 inclusive, without a copyright notice". See also File:Clint Eastwood Fistful of Dollars.jpg deletion discussion and File:Eastwood Good Bad and the Ugly.png deletion discussion where sourced discussion shows these film are under copyright. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Copyright information for A Fistful of Dollars and The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly are recorded in the mentioned discussions. For For A Few Dollars More, the copyright holder has notified the Copyright Office on 29 October 1997 of their intention to enforce their copyright as restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (document number V8009P414 in the US Copyright Office Records). The film trilogy is still copyrighted in the US as far as the law is concerned. Jappalang (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BOAC Comet 4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• All rights reserved at the source; no evidence it ever was under a free license. Also, is Flickr user "ian.tenpin" John Ricketts? Lupo 20:27, 24 February 2011 (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: The image was/is marked with a ((Non-free album cover)) and has a FUR. If the issue is if the rationale is valid or not either tag it with ((Di-disputed fair use rationale)) or send it to FFD. When tagged with a non-free content tag a copyvio is not considered a valid argument. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mann-Buzzin-500x500.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright infringement from http://thehypefactor.com/mann-feat-50-cent-buzzin-music-video/ Manway (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alain-Badiou lk Use.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a professional portrait, would likely require permission via WP:OTRS. — ξ^xplicit 22:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a copyvio: This has a bigger issue. According to the images Meta/Exif data it is from IBO/SIPA, which is a commercial content provider along the lines of the Associated Press. (SIPA - About - Sipa Press covers world news thanks to a staff of 25 photographers, a network of more than 600 correspondents and exclusive distribution agreements with partner agencies such as the Associated Press (AP), Rex Features in the UK and La Presse in Italy.) See this article for the same image, with attribution as "(c)Ibo/Sipa". Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Nicholas Rescher.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be a professional portrait. The uploader may be connected to the subject somehow, but it's unclear and unlikely that he's the photographer. — ξ^xplicit 22:10, 24 February 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philippa.foot.1943.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Professional portrait. Without a source or author, it's not possible to determine the copyright status. — ξ^xplicit 22:28, 24 February 2011 (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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spartan-head.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright is probably owned by the school district. Eeekster (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2011 (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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Copyright most likely owned by school district. Eeekster (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2011 (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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Souris-regional-high-school.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright likely owned by school district. Eeekster (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2011 (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.