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 text is not too simple to be copyrightable; literary works are not covered by FOP. BethNaught (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rocgeese2815lg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uncertain if this is covered by Australian freedom of panorama, as it is primarily an image of text. Opinions welcome. Kelly ^hi! 12:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the photographer, I believe it is very unlikely that any serious claim of copyright can ever be made about publication of this image and/or its text. It's about a 140-year-old historical event, very well known in Western Australia. The text is an iteration of facts on the public record, not an artistic creation. Its compiler, the late Francis Conlan, whom I knew personally, wanted to maximise exposure of those facts, which is why he sponsored the memorial in the first place. He would have been angered by such an unjustified attempt to obscure the full significance of the memorial from public attention and scrutiny. Perhaps you will now be good enough to give some full and proper justification of your gratuitous "possibly unfree" impugnment as a basis for further specific discussion. Bjenks (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to c:COM:FOP#Australia, Australia only has FOP for certain artistic works but not for literary works. Also, whether something is a public record or not doesn't have anything to do with the copyright status of the material. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2015 (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: delete per the precautionary principle: a statement does not imply its converse. BethNaught (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peremoha (Kharkiv Metro).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Permission statement at given source doesn't say whether derivative works and commercial use are allowed. Kelly ^hi! 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That's right, they don't. If it doesn't explicitly say that it's not allowed, then I bet it is. This image is for educational purposes, not for commercial use. Use an image crawler and count how many instances of this exact same image you see on the web. The person who created that image obviously doesn't care enough to have it taken down. So why should we? § DDima 02:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The English translation on the file information page says "Use of full or partial materials is only allowed with the inclusion of a link to kharkov.dozor.ua". So it is not permitted to use the material if you do not link to the website. The text does not reveal whether it is permitted to use the material if you link to the website, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text listed exactly does permit us to use the material (as long we link to the website, which we are doing anyway). Link needed to use the material = Link provided = Being able to use the material. KISS. Simple as that. § DDima 02:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The English text on the file information page says that it is not permitted to use the material if you do not link to the website. The text suggests that there are some situations in which you may use the material with a link to the website, but the text doesn't reveal what those situations are, making the statement useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The file's license here on Wikipedia, ((Attribution)), says that the photo may be used "for any purpose". However, that just isn't backed up by the text on the source webpage, which doesn't say that. Kelly ^hi! 15:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not an explicit release under any free license / no evidence of permission (((Attribution))). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:17, 13 December 2015 (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: Delete; deleted by BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brookstone private school.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Files is probably copied from [1] (direct link), 1500x1171, bigger than here. Yann (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Evidently the same image (note the clouds on the right edge). Only the Wikipedia upload has been scaled down and cropped. De728631 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reds Chipper First Base.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like TV screen capture. Yann (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to agree. The yellowish spot in the centre looks like a reflection on the screen. Delete. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2015 (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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port Jeff Harbor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Insufficient information given to verify copyright status. Kelly ^hi! 19:33, 7 December 2015 (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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poster-Joe-Louis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Insufficient source information given to verify claimed copyright status. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 7 December 2015 (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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Postop Jatene neonate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Postop Jatene neonate2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

• Uploader included the statement "This image was uploaded with the intention to use it as a photographic illustration in any applicable article on Wikipedia or any affiliated site." This makes it unclear if it can be used for any purpose given the ((attribution)) license. Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can't help but feel that this is a bit of a stretch. The uploader's intent doesn't automatically introduce restrictions against the given license. — ξ^xplicit 01:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Explicit. I upload my images to Commons with the intention of them being used in Wikipedia articles, but I understand the free license I use allows for other uses and I agree to that license. I don't think the cited text prevents other uses, given the explicit free license the uploader added at the same time. BethNaught (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Problematic wording. The wording could mean that the uploader meant to grant a permission which would only allow us to use the images in Wikipedia articles and on 'affiliated sites'.^{[clarification needed]} It could also mean that the uploader knew what licence he was granting, but that he wanted to provide extra information about his intended use of the images. In the event of any legal dispute, a court would likely use the interpretation of the uploader, so if the uploader claims that he meant the first interpretation, then the court would accept that and treat the files as licensed only for Wikipedia and 'affiliated sites', unless the other party somehow could prove that the uploader meant something else. The wording makes me feel uneasy, and I think that it would be safer to delete the images unless we can get a clarification from the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2016 (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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dheeraj Kumar wadhwa interacts with media after KKR's maiden IPL title.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dheeraj Kumar Wadhwa.jpeg. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unused personal non-encyclopedic file. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:42, 18 December 2015 (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: Delete; deleted as F1 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dheeraj Kumar Wadhwa interacts with media after KKR's maiden IPL title.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dheeraj Kumar Wadhwa.jpeg. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2015 (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.