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⚡ 02:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ernst Adolph Guillemin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Insufficient source information to verify copyright status. The M.I.T. Museum website doesn't bring up Ernst Guillemin in its search. — ξ^xplicit 03:07, 29 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 MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Genlisearepens1web.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source or permission. Kelly ^hi! 06:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent a request for a ticket to OTRS JoJan (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS added -- Taketa (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 22:17, 11 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⚡ 02:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:5299 file 3616 file 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Public domain tag is disputed. Also, while the image looks to be a government-produced work from the oblast assembly's website ([1]), the site contains a copyright notice. Kinu ^t/_c 07:05, 29 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amar Praner Priya.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 13:29, 29 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. MGA73 is absolutely correct, and in fact, I follow this same practice of copyright + free license on my personal Web site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image-Divje01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The description clearly says ©1997, but it also claims to be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Focus (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? If I take a photo I have the copyright and can add a © to the photo. But I can also add any license I choose. So I do not think that the © is a problem if that is what you mean. If you do not like the combination of 1997 and version 3.0 it is also not a problem. There is no terms in 3.0 that says that it is illegal to license works from 1997 under that license. What could be a problem is that the GFDL was added by a IP-user [2]. But this IP-user has edited some of the same articles as the original uploader, so it could very well be the same user that just forgot to login. --MGA73 (talk) 22:25, 11 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⚡ 02:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:OpenCaster broadcasting big buck bunny.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• While the movie in this screenshot is under a compatible license, it is unclear whether the player is or not and whether that matters. Danger (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyright issue seems really complex: the player is actually a digital television receiver and a long list of software and hardware manipulated the content since the original movie. After all it won't be a big issue if the .png is removed, thanks for listening and caring to explain! Lorenzopallara (talk) 00:51, 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.