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⚡ 05:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hossein Nassim, 2011.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo of a printed source? Eeekster (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, mistake on my part, I meant to submit it under a different license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepalsummer (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Marked as cc-by-2.5, but the Flickr source is tagged as cc-by-nd-2.0. I would be willing to consider this a case of ((Flickr-change-of-license)), but the 2.5 licenses have never been available on Flickr, so it's far more likely that this has never been properly marked than that it was licensed under 2.5 any other way (e.g. the uploader stating in text "This is cc-by-2.5") only to have the 2.5 statement removed. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, see Commons:Template:Flickr-change-of-license; forgot that we didn't have that template here. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiananmen Hand Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's clearly not the uploader's own work, as he or she mentioned "artist unknown". It's not used either. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:26, 17 September 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 discussion was: delete. The copyright status of the elephant has not been sufficiently established, even following discussion, and therefore it must go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simuation of carton production - showing problems with die cut.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a box or something. Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like a simulation (a clue is in the file name) probably intended to be part of a draft article in the uploader's userspace. See User:Peterqherman for the draft (though that draft and a few image uploads are their only contributions in 18 months). Astronaut (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not explain anything about the copyright status of the image. Did the uploader draw the box and take the photo of the elephant on the box? Also, fair use doesn't apply since the image isn't used in the mainspace, see WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the comments at WP:RD/M about this (where I asked for help identifying it, not for help to save it) are persuasive. I'll leave off Astronaut's comment there because of his comment above mine, but I quote the other two:

Why would a fair use claim be an issue? I don't see any evidence that it's ever been listed as a nonfree image before being brought here. Moreover, why couldn't the uploader have created the elephant image? Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 18 September 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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Folded pages have image transfer - ink not dry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be a scan of some advertisement or something. Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghapi on drums.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not only on Facebook, but also here. No evidence that the uploader is the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 09:56, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Seems to be a scan of something. No evidence that the uploader drew this. Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment derivative work of the Yellow Pages logo File:Yellow Pages Logo.png, which has been in use for decades, so would require a fair use rationale -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohammad Qayoumi speaks with SJSU Watermark.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence provided that publications of San Jose university are covered by PD-USGov. University homepage is marked as copyrighted. No link to exact source page provided. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PD reason is given as ((PD-CAGov)), not ((PD-USGov)). I'm not sure whether PD-CAGov is correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:24, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephanie Dees in The Collingswood Story.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The text "screen grab, fair use" suggests that the licence claim is wrong. I don't see how this would pass WP:NFCC#8, so fair use doesn't seem to be an option. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grant Edmonds in The Collingswood Story.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See nomination immediately above. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Totaldhamaal2014wiki.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed to be a poster for a film, so unlikely own work. Also no hits on Google or Tineye, which is uncommon for film posters, so maybe hoax? Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 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 discussion was: keep. Reading over this discussion, and also reading the file description page, I am reading "intended for GDFL licensure for reuse for academic, scientific, educational uses without further permissions" as more along the lines of "this is what sorts of reuses I had in mind", but obviously the GFDL is much further reaching than that, and when you release under the GFDL, you've released it under the GFDL, period, end of story. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brain CT scan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Description says, "The patient has signed a release for use of the anonymized image for educational, research, and teaching purposes," and "It is intended for GDFL licensure for reuse for academic, scientific, educational uses without further permissions." If the license is restricted like this to educational uses only, then it is not free enough for Wikipedia; see WP:NONCOM for example. —Bkell (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear if a CT image can be copyrighted at all. Anyway it is easy to get more of these. It is just a normal CT head.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because the uploader explicitly applied a valid CC license tag as well. We need not worry about the restricted GFDL; users are allowed to give as many nonfree licenses as they want as long as their images bear valid licenses too. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is no such thing as a "restricted GFDL." It is clear that the uploader did not understand that a release under the GFDL necessarily allows all use, including commercial and non-educational use; his intent was to limit the use of the image. I think the same is true for the Creative Commons tag. So I think it is pretty clear that the uploader mistakenly applied these tags without fully understanding and agreeing to the terms of the licenses. Now, I can't deny that the uploader did apply the GFDL and CC tags, so I guess the question comes down to whether we are going to assert that the uploader is bound by the terms of the GFDL and CC licenses even when it is pretty clear that he did not intend for the image to be released under the terms of those licenses. If we are going to do that, then we must also agree that his attempts to limit the use of the image to academic, scientific, and educational uses only are void, and we should remove those sentences from the file description page as false claims. —Bkell (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there be no such thing as a restricted GFDL, we don't need to worry about it. We can simply ignore "It is intended for GDFL licensure for reuse for academic, scientific, educational uses without further permissions." Instead, we can go with the CC license, which he doesn't seem to have attempted to modify; the patient's consent is not required for copyright purposes, so "The patient has signed a release for use of the anonymized image for educational, research, and teaching purposes" isn't a difficulty on the copyright side. Meanwhile, as I understand it, you could make your GFDL nonfree by uploading it originally with a statement like the uploader gave: that it's GFDL except that you have to use it for research, teaching, etc. If you add another license at the same time with no such qualification, then we can assume that you're ignoring the qualifications for that license, since you didn't attempt to restrict it, and if you add restrictions later, we can ignore them because we're using the original upload. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so your point of view (correct me if I'm wrong) is that whether or not the uploader understood the licensing terms of the GFDL/CC, and whether or not he actually meant to release the image under those terms, he put a tag on the file description page, so that's that? I suppose that's a defensible position, because there has to be some sense of a binding commitment when uploaders choose licenses. But I would argue that in a case where the uploader likely just chose the default, "recommended" licensing option from a drop-down menu, and clearly states in the description that the image is to be used for educational purposes only, then the intent of the uploader plainly does not match the supposed license. So it seems strange to me to say, "Sorry, even though it's pretty clear that you meant to release this for educational use only, and that's what you thought you were doing, you accidentally put a tag on the image that allows unrestricted use, and that's a binding agreement you made." But, again, I understand that we have to do this to some extent—for most free images on Wikipedia, we just have a bare licensing tag, and we need to be able to assume that the uploader understood the terms of the license he or she was choosing and willingly agreed to it—so if that's the consensus here, I'm fine with it, and we just need to edit the file description page to remove the invalid claimed restrictions on its use. —Bkell (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do feel that I should point out that there are many precedents here at PUI for deleting files like this unless we can get clear confirmation that the uploader agrees to unrestricted use. For example, so far this month we've had File:SPIuse2.gif and others, File:Mary Stein Zale Parry Richard Doyon Tillamook Treasure.jpg and others, and File:Wheeler Hall.jpg. Again, I'm not opposed to changing the way we handle cases like this, but it would be a change. —Bkell (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People don't own copyright on images that other people take of their brains, and personality rights don't apply. If the copyright owner went against the patient's wishes that is between them and the ethics board. Once rights are released they can't be regained. If a child doesn't understand that popping a balloon releases the air, that doesn't make it any less popped. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:41, 28 September 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 F9 by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The View.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Multiple results on the Internet with higher resolution, e.g [1] Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:56, 17 September 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 F1 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soundgarden King Animal cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't think that the Flickr user is the copyright holder. Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armenia chess olympiad.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:11, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hidden mickey totem pole.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the pictured three-dimensional totem pole sculpture. Powers ^T 20:52, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mark twain hidden mickey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the painting. Powers ^T 20:54, 17 September 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The upload summaries includes URLs which could mean that the images were taken from those websites. No evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence that the image is free. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:43, 28 September 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 F9 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herbert holden thorp.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright is listed as being UNC, not the federal government, which would make this ineligible for the listed free use criterion.  Frank  |  talk  22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted. PUF is for ambiguous situations; this was so clear that it qualified for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 18 September 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.