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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:My inner beast in odense.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per commons:COM:FOP#Denmark: sculptor still alive. Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:My inner beast in Barcelona.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is in Spain (which has freedom of panorama for artworks) but at File:My inner beast in odense.jpg, the same artwork is seen in Denmark, so maybe it isn't permanently placed at the location in Barcelona? Permanent placement at some location seems to be a requirement for freedom of panorama in Spain (unlike China where it doesn't seem to be a requirement). Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (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 F4 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:In the name of god.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Sculpture: See commons:COM:FOP#Denmark. Could maybe be kept as fair use. Photo: No licence for the photo task. Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Web resolution + no EXIF → likely copyvio. Also note that the same uploader uploaded File:CurtisDvorak.JPG which is an obvious copyvio of the man on this photo. Stefan2 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bluebird BE-1 electric truck.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Author: Bluebird Automotive" but contradicting ((self)). Web resolution and no EXIF. Stefan2 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BMB LCPB11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims both "own work" and "someone else's work" at the same time. Uploader lists [1] as source where I can find neither the image nor any source of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air Heart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The thing held in the hand is supposed to be a sculpture. The sculptor is Chinese but apparently seems to spend half of her time in Paris and half of it in Shanghai. Clearly fails commons:COM:FOP#France but I'm not so sure about commons:COM:FOP#China. If the photo was taken in China, it needs to be "an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place". If someone is holding an artistic work in his hand, is it then "on display in an outdoor public place"? Note that the Chinese law doesn't seem to require it to be permanently located at any location; it just needs to be located somewhere while the photographer takes the photo. Stefan2 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: isn't the uploader implying they are themselves the author of the object too? The name of the uploader's account is that of the artist, and it's a single-purpose autobio account. (Perhaps not a good sign in terms of COI editing, but usually a good sign in terms of image rights.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't notice the user name. Yes, it seems likely that the uploader is the copyright holder of the object. In that case, there is no problem with the image, but there could be COI problems with the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph from a UK government website, uploaded in the (likely) mistaken assumption that it is covered by the Open Government Licence, when the source website itself only speaks of Crown Copyright. Argument made on talk, to the effect that the OGL now applies automatically to all government-published material, appears to be based on a misreading of the sources quoted. According to [2], as well as the text of the license itself [3], OGL still only applies to publications that are individually marked with it, and the statement here [4] that the OGL "is applicable across the entire public sector" only means that all public sector bodies may choose to use it, not that they do so automatically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• See the site's copyright page, which (albeit slightly poorly worded for our purposes) publicly notes the release of all "core" Crown Copyright works on the site. Disclaimer: The Open Government Licence used to be my "day job", and so my understanding of things like its scope is necessarily based on material not entirely public; my former colleagues are working on making it clearer. James F. (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm, but it isn't releasing it under the OGL, is it? It just speaks of traditional Crown Copyright. And the permission it grants appears to be a restricted, non-derivative one ("provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context"). Isn't it for this reason that we generally classify Crown Copyright works as non-free? See ((Non-free Crown copyright)). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per this sock report the person making the argument on the image talk page is a sock of an editor banned for sockpuppetry and copyright violations, so anything he says about copyright can usually be disregarded. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The same image (or certainly from the same website) has previously been deleted from Commons. The problem is the NIO's copyright notice, which reads:

• The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

• Whereas other government departments use a slightly different copyright notice:

• The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence (external link). This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

• The inclusion of the Open Government Licence part is the key part, as the relevant part of this includes "You are free to . . . adapt the Information . . . exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application". Crown Copyright doesn't explicitly allow for adaptation without the OGL clause, and we can't use images that can't be adapted except as fair-use. This may be an error on the part of the Northern Ireland Office not including the OGL clause on their website, but until they do or we receive clarification through OTRS we shouldn't be using any images from there unless they are fair use. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that NIO's wording (in contravention of what they were meant to put there, per the letter TNA sent around) is unhelpful, but see this statement which trumps NIO's website (and that of any other department). "Information owned by the Crown is offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence by authority of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, an official in The National Archives." Will go and undelete that other one from Commons (it's not the same - see 1 vs 2 - but good spot! Suggest we close this discussion and that below it now it's cleared up. James F. (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hugo Swire Official.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Same case as above Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Same justification as above. James F. (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Per above also. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  See reply. :-) James F. (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MGpamarrdma2aa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Old photograph, doubtful copyright status, uploader may not be copyright holder due to history of violations, no real claim of ownership besides copyright tag, orphaned, part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mhgffft5gk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Old photograph, doubtful copyright status, uploader may not be copyright holder due to history of violations, no real claim of ownership besides copyright tag, orphaned, part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Old photograph, doubtful copyright status, uploader may not be copyright holder due to history of violations, no real claim of ownership besides copyright tag, orphaned, part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per this [5] the uploader was born in 1978, and this photo was, by the looks of it, taken prior to that time due to the age of the subject - who despite being born in 1923 looks very young in this picture. Furthermore, uploader is a serial copyright violator, nomination made as part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Might be in the public domain because of age, but impossible to tell without more information. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oldish photograph, doubtful copyright status, uploader may not be copyright holder due to history of violations, no real claim of ownership besides copyright tag, orphaned, part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Am444gr1y.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Does this constitute an unauthorized derivative work - unclear wether stuffed animal or sculpture; orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2012 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waiting to exist- oil on canvas- 60 x 47 inches -2006.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Painting, doubt uploader owns copyright, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (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.