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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully sure if PD-self claim is true. Jusjih (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2007 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable cc-by-sa-2.5 claim. Jusjih (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (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 I3 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cc-by-nd-2.1-jp is non-derivative. Unsure if fair use is possible. Jusjih (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once claimed PD-self but removed by uploader. Jusjih (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2007 (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 I9 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable copyright-free claim. Jusjih (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2007 (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 I9 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 today but cannot tell if this was ever without nc. Jusjih (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I located the image as public domain from http://wikilou.com/wiki/index.php/Image:Stpaulsandwish.jpg. It turned out to be mis-attributed there, because someone (24.107.185.206) perhaps the rights holder/creator found it on Wikipedia and added their copyright and a link to the Flickr page that mentions cc-by-nc-sa-2.0. So this doesn't go with Wikipedia's image terms. Whitebox (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the base map used is admittedly a screenshot[1] but the uploader hasn't specified what it's a screenshot of after i asked him/her Mangostar (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (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 I9 by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader blanked the license and the image has a watermark of a website. Jusjih (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2007 (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 G7 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader blanked the page and license unexplained.\ Jusjih (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would fall under ((db-blanked)). MECU≈talk 14:39, 3 January 2008 (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 G12 by Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a screen grab or photo from a pitchside photographer, extremely unlikely to have been created by the uploader. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More or less all the images this user (User:Jackus2008 | Special:Contributions/Jackus2008) has uploaded are probable copyvios, tagged as ((pd-self)). I have blocked him for a week and a half to protect the project but I do not have time right now to go through his upload log and check everything else. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2007 (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 I9 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Evidently a professional/promotional image. Chris.B (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cover of a magazine, but it is tagged as public domain, which seems weird. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an image from a movie, but it says that it is "promo" and "public domain". An unlikely combination. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (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 I8 by Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source website does not support license claim. Fritz S. (Talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's all right now. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that photo is gfdl. Shell ^babelfish 21:38, 19 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can't find original image on flickr w/ cursory search, http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidroethler/ appears to tag photos copyrighted or non-commercial Mangostar (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can't find image w/ cursory flickr search, http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidroethler/ appears to tag photos copyrighted or non-commercial Mangostar (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No confirmation that copyright holder has agreed to release license. Shell ^babelfish 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted, confirmation received at OTRS. Shell ^babelfish 07:47, 2 January 2008 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Image is in PD in Fiji, but doesn't appear to fall in any cases that would allow it to be PD in the US. Shell ^babelfish 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I then need your advice on how to proceed with this I would like it to stay as it helps the articles I used it on be a better encyclopedia article, is there a way around this or does it have to be deleted, I await yours and wikipedias decision, Vinaka,Maikeli MB (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Without knowing the exact date the photo was taken, we cannot assume the image is in the public domain in the United States. I don't believe the image would pass WP:NFCC #8 or #1 to allow a fair use claim. -Nv8200p talk 21:00, 1 February 2008 (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: Deleted-FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the following images are uploaded as PD-self, but several are obviously news photos or TV screenshots. As the user hasn't been very active I strongly suspect they are all copyright violations and should be deleted unless proof to the contrary can be obtained. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:7-7londonterrorism.jpg
• Image:Fire Brigade Timber Carrier.JPG
• Image:UK Fire Disaster Recovery Module.JPG
• Image:UK Building Collapse Rescue.JPG
• Image:LFB Command Units.JPG
• Image:Rooney sent off.jpg
• Image:LFB Damage Control Unit.jpg
• Image:LFB Hose Layer Unit.jpg
• Image:LFB Bulk Foam Unit.jpg
• Image:Lexden 2.JPG
• Image:Lexden 1.JPG
• Image:Orsett Hall after the fire.jpg
• Image:House fire.jpg
• Image:Halstead factory fire.jpg
• Image:Brentwood pallet yard fire.jpg
• Image:Orsett Hall fire.jpg
• Image:Coryton oil refinery fire.jpg
• Image:Harwich warehouse fire.jpg
• Image:ECFRS Foam Tanker.jpg
• Image:ECFRS Foam Carrier.JPG
• Image:Essex Fire Hose Layer Unit.JPG
• Image:Essex Fire Command Unit.JPG
• Image:ECFRS Major Rescue Tender.JPG
• Image:ECFRS Aerial Ladder Platform.JPG
• Image:ECFRS All-Terrain Pump.JPG
• Image:ECFRS Pump Ladder.JPG
• Image:Fleeing Manhattan.jpg
• Image:London Brigade Command Unit.jpg
• Image:Soho pump ladder.JPG
• Image:London fire engine.JPG
• Image:Circumcised penis.JPG
• Image:ECFRS Rescue Unit.JPG
• Image:ECFRS Water Tender.JPG
• Image:ECFRS Pump.JPG
• Image:Essex Police Traffic unit.JPG
• Image:BTP Land Rover.JPG
• Image:City of London Police Patrol car.JPG
• Image:Met Patrol car.JPG
• Image:NYPD headquarters.jpg
• Image:NYC closed to traffic.jpg
• Image:NYC after first tower collapsed.JPG
• Image:Second tower collapses.JPG
• Image:WTC2 Collapse live on CNN.jpg
• Image:Attack on WTC 2.jpg
• Image:WTC First attack.jpg

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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the artist's signature in the image look like it says "Ryan Lohan 2007" to you? The uploader used GFDL-self. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of CC-BY-3.0. must be sent to OTRS. See WP:COPYREQ. Rettetast (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (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 I4 by MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation of CC-BY-3.0. must be sent to OTRS. See WP:COPYREQ. Rettetast (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2007 (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; for now-FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Peter and Malachi own these photographs and they have given full permission for them to be used. Who is disputing their copyright. Austenlennon (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)austenlennon[reply]

here is the text from the image page - is it not clear enough - Promotional picture of Peter Corry from http://www.davidhullpromotions.com/Corry.htm uploaded with the full consent of Peter Corry and David Hull (Peter Corry's management) should confirmation be required contact Tony Brown tony@dhpromotions.com Peter Corry's management contact. Austenlennon 00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)austenlennon[reply]

Please have them send a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Once that is received, someone from that office will tag the image as having confirmed permission. You can see a sample letter of permission at Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Thank you. --B (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Permission to be used" is not the same as "permission to release under CC-BY-3.0". MECU≈talk 14:43, 3 January 2008 (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.