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⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maida ND 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Source: Internal project documentation" is insufficient to prove the ((PD-USGov)) license. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: This photo was taken by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc, a US Govt. contractor, and was delivered to the US Government (DHS and GSA) in its August 21, 2013 Monthly Status Report (MSR). This report, and its contents, are government property and therefore are in the public domain. I have added clarification to the photo details.Wbaron (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question: (Also about the other files listed on this page that have the same "Source: Internal project documentation" origin) - does PD-USGov apply to a contractor? My impression was that it only applies to directly government made works, unless the terms of the contract imply that the works by the contractor may not be copyrighted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PD-USGov only covers works by employees of the United States Government, not works by contractors of the United States Government. For an example, see Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That example doesn't really relate because it was a photo of an artistic creation. In this case, the photographer was paid by the government to produce the report which contains the photo of a govermnent building. The government owns the report and has the right to use its contents in other documents it produces, which therefore renders the material in the public domain.Wbaron (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that example, the artist who made the artistic creation was a government contractor. Since he was a contractor as opposed to an employee, the artistic creation wasn't covered by PD-USGov, and it was therefore not permitted to use a photo of the artistic creation on stamps without permission from the artist. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:PR Migration 1995-2000.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PR Migration 1995-2000.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:27, 3 February 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⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarles ND border station.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Source: Internal project documentation" is insufficient to prove the ((PD-USGov)) license. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: This photo was taken by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc, a US Govt. contractor, and was delivered to the US Government (DHS and GSA) in its October 16, 2013 Monthly Status Report (MSR). This report, and its contents, are government property and therefore are in the public domain. I have added clarification to the photo details.Wbaron (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PD-USGov only covers works by employees of the United States Government, not works by contractors of the United States Government. For an example, see Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 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⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neche ND 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Source: Internal project documentation" is insufficient to prove the ((PD-USGov)) license. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: This photo was taken by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc, a US Govt. contractor, and was delivered to the US Government (DHS and GSA) in its June 12, 2013 Monthly Status Report (MSR). This report, and its contents, are government property and therefore are in the public domain.Wbaron (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PD-USGov only covers works by employees of the United States Government, not works by contractors of the United States Government. For an example, see Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MOH William G. Harrell.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MOH William G. Harrell.JPG Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:42, 3 February 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⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dreddup2004.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low resolution and lack of EXIF make self-work claim doubtful. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:51, 3 February 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⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dreddup2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low-resolution and lack of EXIF make self-work claim doubtful. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:52, 3 February 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⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DreDDup Abnormal Waltz 1998.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Orifginal (sic) artwork I made for dreDDup in 1998." - If the uploader made this artwork for the band as a commercial deal, then the band likely owns the copyright. No evidence that the uploader has the authority to release the image under a free license. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:54, 3 February 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⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DreDDup Mr Borndeads Feast 2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Artwork for dreDDup album cover I made with the help of 91 Design team." - If the uploader made this artwork for the band as a commercial deal, then the band likely owns the copyright. No evidence that the uploader has the authority to release the image under a free license. Image is orphaned so I can't convert it to fair use as I did with a similar upload. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:58, 3 February 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⚡ 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DreDDup One Way 2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Artwork created by Aleksandar Krajovan and modified for the publishing by me." - No evidence that uploader has sufficient authority over the copyright of this image to release it under a free license. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:59, 3 February 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: convert to fair use. — ξ^xplicit 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DreDDup Future Porn Machine 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Artwork I made in 2006 for the 2007's album release for the band dreDDup." - If the uploader made this artwork for the band as a commercial deal, then the band likely owns the copyright. No evidence that the uploader has the authority to release the image under a free license. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:59, 3 February 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 as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Har Cheong Gai Burger.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This file looks like it's copied from https://www.burpple.com/f/CLHqbX19 which shows no evidence of being freely licensed. The uploader had a large amount of other uploads deleted because of licensing/copying issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of release under the claimed license. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 3 February 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 as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rojak Bandung.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be copied from http://meltz-inyourmouth.blogspot.ch/2008_11_01_archive.html and there is no evidence that the license is correct or the uploader (who has been uploading a number of seemingly copied images with iffy or no licensing) is the copyright holder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of release under the claimed license. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 3 February 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: keep. The image does not seem to be lifted from either source; only the data appears to be extracted. There is no reasonable suspicion to doubt the uploader's claim to the work. — ξ^xplicit 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:US container port water depths.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The file indicates two sources, one being https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/conc4en/uswaterwaysystem.html which specifically says that it's copyrighted and should not be reproduced, and another one http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/portswaterways/rpt/June_20_U.S._Port_and_Inland_Waterways_Preparing_for_Post_Panamax_Vessels.pdf which includes a number of third party images. I am guessing this is not PD-USGov thus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Kcida10 is claiming own work on this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:26, 3 February 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: procedural close. Wrong venue. — ξ^xplicit 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The red and gold image discussed at Presidential Seal of Turkey seems to be the sole Presidential Seal used [1]. Current fair use argument for this image is therefore invalid. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:30, 3 February 2016 (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:FFD. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I'm withdrawing this nomination and doing down the ((dfu)) route. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:54, 4 February 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⚡ 05:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Om Banna Late.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The other ((own)) claims by this user appear to be incorrect. That means that this ((own)) claim probably is wrong too. Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obviously photoshopped image. See http://ww.itimes.com/discussion/om-banna -Whpq (talk) 17:58, 3 February 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.