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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:FN F2000 with EGLM Grenade Launcher.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image resembles a scaled-down version of the image found in [1]. Skiminki (talk) 06:32, 17 January 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 Copyright sorted. Danger (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looks like a screenshot. Unless the program is under a free license this would be a derivative work. MGA73 (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader of the screenshot and also the author of the program from which the screenshot was taken, and have released the image into the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrutchfield (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case there is no copyright problem. --MGA73 (talk) 08:47, 30 January 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 License determined. Danger (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orlove paper BU-344-M pg.4.tiff (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If the book is from 1970 it is probably still copyrighted. MGA73 (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I entered this image for the author, who owns the copyright, because he is visually impaired and unable to do it for himself. It was not obvious to me what to do with the copyright notice, and I'd love to have it fixed so that this remains. Mhuben (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload the file for the author of the book then the copyright issue is solved. It would perhaps be nice if we had a written permission from the author but I have no idea how this should work in this case. Unless someone has a good solution I suggest we trust Mhuben on this one. --MGA73 (talk) 08:52, 30 January 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 Gimme danger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandeep khare.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks very much like the one here http://www.flickr.com/photos/52993686@N02/4891095556/sizes/m/in/photostream/ with the license "All rights reserved by SagarKokne". So unless this is the same user at the uploader this is not free. MGA73 (talk) 09:45, 17 January 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⚡ 03:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Village of the Arts Woodcarving.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This may be art or it may just be a detail of some vase or whatever. I would like some opinions what to do with this. MGA73 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the description, it would appear that this is a detail of a work by an identifiable artist and thus would fall under copyright (as I understand it). --Danger (talk) 14:23, 30 January 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: Deleted per Commons:COM:FOP#France. Can be undeleted if someone intends to make a fair-use claim and tags appropriately. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is a photograph of the Grande Arche just outside Paris. The uploader tagged it with ((PD-self)) and cited United States copyright law, 17 USC §120, to justify that claim, which he believes applies because the image is being hosted on a server in the United States. An anonymous editor, 67.80.214.27, has recently tagged it with ((Wrong-license)), saying, "17 USC 120 is not valid for this image since the building is located in France." —Bkell (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the photographer, and I've released the photo to the public domain. The anonymous editor is wrong. As long as the photo is on a server in the United States, U.S. copyright law applies. It doesn't matter where the building is. That's why Project Gutenberg can offer certain works of classic literature for free on its site, even though they might be under copyright in other countries: the works have fallen into the public domain in the U.S., so as long as the books are on a U.S. server, they stay in the public domain. Same principle here. I thought that citing chapter and verse would silence the critics, but apparently not. Agateller (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Images of architectural works are covered by the local Freedom of Panorama (FOP) provisions. 17 USC 120 is the FOP clause for the United States. This photo is covered by the French FOP provisions which are more restrictive. The French copyright law permits only de minimis images of modern buildings. The comparison to Project Gutenberg is not a valid reason why this photo should be PD. 67.80.214.27 (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French law does not apply in the United States, period. Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, so French law doesn't apply to them, either, period. Placing a photograph in the public domain is the exclusive prerogative of the photographer, in both France and the U.S., and this photo has been released to the public domain, period. Agateller (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - see the arguments I made at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 25#File:Paris Collage.png; no need to rehash them. French FOP is irrelevant. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That DR was kept because the buildings was all created by people that died for more than 70 years ago. --MGA73 (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Photos of this building are periodically deleted from the Commons. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Grande Arche for more information. 67.80.214.27 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes made in the past do not justify mistakes in the future. Unless the servers for the Commons are outside the U.S., U.S. law applies to them, too. By the way, this is not just a question of freedom of panorama. U.S. law explicitly and specifically disallows copyright protection for photos of architectural works, even if they are the central subject of a photo—of course, freedom of panorama directly follows from that as well. Agateller (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the outcome of this debate should be, but I thought I should mention that the Commons, as a matter of policy, requires images to be free in both the United States and in their country of origin. This, I believe, is the reason that there are so many freedom-of-panorama debates there. I don't think the English Wikipedia has such a requirement, though I may be wrong—I think the English Wikipedia allows images that are free only in the United States, even if they may fall under copyright protection in some other country. —Bkell (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If a building is in France then US law is not relevant per Commons:COM:FOP. Sadly. En-wiki can keep files if they fall under fair use. --MGA73 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems that a legitimate fair-use claim can be made since any image of the building would have the the same copyright issue and is thus not replaceable. --Danger (talk) 14:25, 30 January 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 Gimme danger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I doubt this is own work. multichill (talk) 20:02, 17 January 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 Gimme danger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jana Defi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I doubt that this is own work. Missing information. multichill (talk) 20:08, 17 January 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 Gimme danger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photograph of Album Cover.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Photograph of Album Cover" multichill (talk) 20:10, 17 January 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 Gimme danger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benair logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphaned logo, the disk in the middle is complex enough to be copyrighted. — ξ^xplicit 23:06, 17 January 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 Gimme danger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mermaid Statue Copy in Dallas Texas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The original statue is still copyrighted and strongly defended by the copyright holders. This statue is a copy, meaning it retains the same copyright. The statue is located in Texas, which is in the U.S., which has no Freedom of Panorama provisions for works of art. That makes this photograph a derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture, and so it cannot be licensed freely. Powers ^T 23:40, 17 January 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 Gimme danger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victor Borge Mermaid 800.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative of the Little Mermaid sculpture in Denmark, which is still copyrighted. No freedom of panorama for artworks in the U.S. Powers ^T 23:47, 17 January 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.