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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khaki Campbells.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Lone file uploaded by user, lacks any camera metadata. Kelly ^hi! 01:09, 3 November 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⚡ 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This image is not taken from the Heinrich Hoffmann Photo Archive. It is taken from http://web.archive.org/web/20000119024737/http://leisuregalleries.com/wick.html. See ((PD-HHOFFMANN)): "this does not apply to Heinrich Hoffmann items not in the US national archives, it must say the item is 'Use Restrictions: unrestricted', always list the source of the image." Unless this image was confiscated by the US Government (not any random US soldier, but by directive of the US government) and stored in the National Archives, once cannot claim the ruling under Price vs United States. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we convert to Non-free use rationale? It would be sad to lose the picture on the Helmut Wick article. I think we can do without the picture on the various lists that currently use the picture? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can use this as non-free content, since it would fail WP:NFCC #1. Commons has two photos of Helmut Wick donated to Wikimedia by the German Federal Archive: commons:File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1986-013-04,_Helmut_Wick.jpg and commons:File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1968-015-19,_Helmut_Wick.jpg. Admittedly neither is as nice of a portrait as File:WickHemut.jpg. However, I think a sub-par (but freely licensed) head shot could be extracted from commons:File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1986-013-04,_Helmut_Wick.jpg. —RP88 ^(talk) 11:22, 3 November 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:KN005025.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Few contribs by uploader, no camera metadata. Kelly ^hi! 05:26, 3 November 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salman Butt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The presence of the microphones at the bottom makes it look as though it was taken at a press conference, so probably by a news organisation rather than an individual. The poor-quality trimming out of the background (see around the shoulders and the hair) and the small file size also make me doubt the claim that the uploader has full rights to the original photograph from which this is derived. Bencherlite^Talk 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Doesn't seem to be a work of uploader. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreed, unless the uploader provides the full unedited photograph, I find it more likely that this is a modification of a press photograph or screenshot of an interview. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 4 November 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 6344.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Also nominating: File:Dragon Fly IMG 0279.JPG, File:IMG 5990.JPG.

• Not clear if uploader is copyright holder. Quadell's comment at earlier FFD: "That version links to Crimsonbelt as a source, which states "Unless otherwise indicated, all photographs on this site are copyrighted by Crimsonbelt, whose permission is required for any usage." I can't find this specific photo on that site, but there are several other photos of flies mating. The uploader is named User:Crimsonbelt, so it might be the photographer... but he never says so explicitly, and he could just be a fan of the site. You can see at Special:Contributions/Crimsonbelt that he only ever uploaded three images and left, never editing anything else. At least two of the three photos are very good, and it would be a shame to lose them if we don't have to. (One, File:Dragon Fly IMG 0279.JPG, is found here on the Crimsonbelt site, with no indication of free license.) What should we do about these? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)" Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We need clear unambiguous declarations. The chance is too high for identity thieves to come in and abuse our trust (especially if the authors never showed any inkling to "free" materials). File:IMG 6344.jpg is at http://crimsonbelt.multiply.com/photos/photo/532/1, while File:IMG 5990.JPG is at http://crimsonbelt.multiply.com/photos/photo/537/78. Thus, all these photographs were already published on the internet before they are uploaded here. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 4 November 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: Delete G7 -requested by author  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Damnwolf.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Album Cover is by far too high of quality to be of created by the user. SKATER ^{Is Back} 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove from article (objective by the rules), Delete because there is no real use for this (subjective): I would not call this "too high of a quality"; the art work is frankly less than professional. As far as we can tell from the provided information, it is just fanart. As such, it should not even be used in the article (speculation and misleading information). No reliable source claims this to be a "possible cover". The least we can do here is to remove it from the article in question. Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I really did create the alleged album cover and I did not get it copyrighted. It was good quality fanart of course. The rapper didn't even approve of that yet and I was wrong for launching the false rumor. Hence, I will remove the picture from the article. However, could you or someone else also delete it from the Wikipedia server? I uploaded through a non-copyrighted license. Thank you. --Applehead McMaster (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Applehead McMaster[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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: moot. Now listed non-free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fineair.arp.750pix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Aldo Bidini, Alain Durand, Torsten Maiwald, amongst others have FREE available. Refer to Commons:Category:Aviation photographers Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This (Possibly unfree files) is the wrong venue to discuss this "non-free" image. As stated, "Please note that this page is not for disputing the fair use of already non-free media, but for the disputing if a freely licensed file really is free. Please take queries of this nature to Files for deletion or Non-free content review". Jappalang (talk) 01:57, 4 November 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. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 4 November 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 WP:CSD#F7 for having an invalid fair use claim. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Z10572853X,Kapitan-Tadeusz-Wrona--To-on-mistrzowsko-wyladowal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The photograph itself is not part of critical commentary. The pilot is a living individual, so a free photo is definitely able to be obtained. This usage does not meet NFCC and needs to be deleted. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The photo was one of two provided freely by the Captain's family to the press. Reference "Wieczorem rodzina kapitana przekazała nam dwie fotografie." - In the evening the Captain's family provided two photographs. Also note that Gazeta could only find one other photo of the subject, taken in 1978, on the internet from Aeroclub Bialystok. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It is relevant for the article, the Captain is being considered a Hero of Poland. The story itself made the top half of the Wall Street Journal front page and USA Today. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A non-free non-contempary image is just being used as decoration in the article about the accident (not the individual), having a photograph of the pilot does not increase the readers understanding of the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This (Possibly unfree files) is the wrong venue to discuss this "non-free" image. As stated, "Please note that this page is not for disputing the fair use of already non-free media, but for the disputing if a freely licensed file really is free. Please take queries of this nature to Files for deletion or Non-free content review". Jappalang (talk) 01:57, 4 November 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. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 4 November 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: wrong forum - try WP:FFD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prinair.heron.750pix.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There are many photos available on the net, and they could reasonably be obtained under a free licence. Clint Groves, amongst others have FREE available. Refer to Commons:Category:Aviation photographers. As this particular photo is not part of critical commentary of the actual photo, it fails NFCC and needs to be deleted. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I verified the source stated for this image does in fact contains the image, and also that the image is used in only the article about the company. I also noted the image contains a free use tag and, as it was uploaded in January 2004 (thus over a year before the May 19, 2005, free use cutoff date) all requirements NFCC where met then. In any event, it seems a possible rationale, assuming the current once was unsatisfactory, could be that without the one intance of this image in question appearing in the article, there would be no way to validate the company's logo. Regards. Mercy11 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Prinair logo.png is one way to "validate" the company's logo. As to any other usage, there are free alternatives available. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This (Possibly unfree files) is the wrong venue to discuss this "non-free" image. As stated, "Please note that this page is not for disputing the fair use of already non-free media, but for the disputing if a freely licensed file really is free. Please take queries of this nature to Files for deletion or Non-free content review". Jappalang (talk) 01:57, 4 November 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. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 4 November 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 as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eamon862.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphan image, Google's cache shows a match at http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0aw3flhbSbemK/610x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://oldforum.cicloweb.it/viewthread.php%3Ftid%3D7729%26page%3D2&usg=__6GdCiDBWhdVat0wk_2ylnebRfzs=&h=444&w=610&sz=64&hl=en&start=1&sig2=Ja5WHsPQQ5-O-sLKyQtyvQ&zoom=1&tbnid=0iUSNVrkA-qYHM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=199&ei=jBezTvySItTd8QO1ntmcBQ&prev=/search%3Fhl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1260%26bih%3D871%26tbs%3Dsimg:CAQSHwnSJRI1WuQD6hoLCxCo1NgEGgIIFwwhe2yA5v9Yf3s%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Dimvns&itbs=1&iact=hc&dur=2532&sig=102944183778715140756&page=1&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=111&ty=112&vpx=188&vpy=192&hovh=191&hovw=263

- The image is seen small on the actual page http://oldforum.cicloweb.it/viewthread.php?tid=7729&page=2 - and the date is one month prior to upload date here.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a clear case of copyright violation ("Oooo, picture on internet, let me upload to Wikipedia and claim it as my own work"). Uploaded here on 14 August 2008, it was already available on this Chinese website on 7 August 2008, this French site on 6 August 2008, around the forums on 13 August 2008, and on the Italian forum pointed above on 19 July 2008 (the image is downscaled on display). This should have been tagged as ((db-f9)). Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Jappalang. The image was found online and cannot possibly be the work of the uploader. EmadIV (talk) 09:54, 4 November 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.