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: No consensus - licence changed to FUR, FFD also closed as no consensus NtheP (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:1930's Joinerville.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I was unable to find the image on the website quoted as a source. The uploader indicates the photo was taken in the 1930s, which is too recent for it to be public domain as claimed. Dianna (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2013 (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⚡ 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This and other images from the article Joinerville, Texas have been changed to fair use. Since they all fail WP:NFCC#8 in that article, they are now up for deletion at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (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 Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Columbus Marion Joiner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source website does not show what year the sketch was created, so we don't know whether the image is actually public domain as claimed. Dianna (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still learning how to do this so your advice would be appreciated. Mr. Joiner, the man in the photo, died in 1937. Since there is no copyright claim on the sketch, can I change the license to this: ((PD-Pre1978)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidking65 (talk • contribs)

In the sense meant for the PD-pre-1978 template, "publication" means the image was published in a book, magazine, or newspaper, not just created by a photographer or artist. Has this image ever been published in this way? If so, you need to give publication details and ascertain the copyright status of the published material. If the image was never published in this way, then the correct template to use is ((PD-US-unpublished)), and the copyright expires 120 years from the date of the creation of the original image. There's more information on copyrights and when they expire at Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart. -- Dianna (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 120-year rule requires that the photographer is anonymous. We don't have any evidence that the photographer is anonymous (there's only an unverifiable claim on the file information page, and a link to a "source" which doesn't contain the image). If the photographer isn't anonymous, then the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer, which could be either before or after 120 years from photography. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Sfefan2. Either way, we will not be able to keep this image, I'm afraid. -- Dianna (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2013 (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 Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oil Derricks in Stroud's Bottom in Joinerville.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image could not have been created prior to 1923 as claimed, as oil was not discovered in the area until 1930. Dianna (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Year of publication missing, so it isn't possible to tell whether a renewal was needed or whether the copyright was renewed. Also, the other side of the card is missing, so it isn't possible to tell if there is a copyright notice there or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2013 (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 Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lena Mae and Johnny Gist Store Joinerville.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• We don't have enough information regarding this photograph to determine what its copyright status is. Who took the photo, and in what year? Has it ever been published before, and if so, where and in what year? Dianna (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of publication and it doesn't say who the photographer was. Besides, it fails WP:NFCC#8, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This photo is my personal property given to me by my grandmother. What is the license tag I would use to authorize full public use and sharing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidking65 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 6 February 2013

What do you mean by "this photo"? If you mean the physical copy of the photograph which you scanned and uploaded, then that is irrelevant. You no more have the right to publish a copy of an image because you own a copy of it than you have the right to publish copies of a book because you own a copy of it. If, however, you mean that your grandmother gave you the reproduction rights of the image, then how did she come to have those rights? Was she the photographer? Was she the owner of the business? The picture looks very much like a publicity photograph of a business. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2013 (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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gaston School.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is incorrectly templated as pre-1923, when the description shows it is from 1970. The image is likely copyright. Dianna (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The other side of the card is missing, so it is not possible to check whether it was published with a copyright notice or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This linen-type postcard is ca 1930s-1950s. The given date of 1970 is incorrect, and there is no way this was published before 1923. ThemFromSpace 05:16, 14 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Artist's signature at the bottom right corner. No evidence of CC-3.0 license. Probably copyvio. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:24, 5 February 2013 (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, with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leroy Sugarfoot Bonner publicity photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD reason. If unfree, it might fail WP:NFC#UUI §9. Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not only is this a publicity photo, this guy is deceased. This seems to be a lot of energy to put into deleting a free photo of a dead guy. -- Donald Andrew Agarrat (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that the subject is deceased, why not just put it under a fair-use claim? Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 11:06, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bringing Back The Balls To Stockholm.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like DVD/Video cover art Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2013 (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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Taken from here, as noted by the original uploader, who may have confused "uploading" a file with holding its copyright? Storkk (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The aerial photograph that's the basis of the image is likely not copyrighted by the uploader, who therefore cannot release under a CC license. If it had previously been released under a CC license we'd have to credit the source. Huon (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (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; the image is on the NOAA website and thus was taken during performance of NOAA duties. Dianna (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waverly, Illinois tornado.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Page that it was taken from clearly states copyright. The associated about page does not state his images are created as part of official duties working for NOAA. Note: uploader is indefblocked, so I haven't edited his talk page. Many of his other uploads are similarly dubious (taken from a NOAA site, but possibly/probably not by NOAA employees). Storkk (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: not using ((npd)), because uploader is no longer available, and it may benefit from discussion. I wouldn't object to someone else ((npd))ing it. Storkk (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2013 (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 Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Moosehadley 20:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_January_24#File:Dakimakura.jpg ; this has already been converted into fairuse. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dakimakura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be having an edit dispute. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ralph F. DellaCamera Stadium aerial photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image information includes reference to author being Shoreline Aerial Photography LLC and this is very different from the uploaded user name. It looks suspicious, so I'm listing it here. Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was originally taken by Shoreline, but is owned by the University of New Haven and can be published with permission. If there is specific documentation I may provide, please let me know what as I am newer to this process. Thanks! Zack Rosen (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you need to provide that permission, change the license agreement, and a whole bunch of other stuff. For example, you are not the copyright holder and therefore cannot release it under the GNU license. Only the school can do that. Further, you are not the "author" of the work but Shoreline is. Please review Wikipedia:Image use policy. And when you're done, get back to this file and do what it says because it's a cool photo. But there are legal ramifications that must be considered.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Text logo, but skeptical about the self claim or simplicity of the design. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (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.