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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per image page, individual who gave permission for use does not know who took photo.  But|seriously|folks  01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Irreplaceable photo of the now-deceased painter Hermon di Giovanno, taken during a show of Di Giovanno's art. The photo was taken for Gil Magno, the other individual who is depicted in the photo (he gave his own camera to some bystander, so that he could appear in the photo with di Giovanno). The photo comes from the personal collection of Gil Magno, who owns the photo and is in a position to give permission for its use, which he has done. Thanks for your interest in this photo, however. Badagnani 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all, this is not a deletion discussion, but an inquiry into the photo's licensing. Now I actually had a conversation about this exact scenario with User:BD2412 (who is an intellectual property lawyer) and User:DS1953 who also talks like a lawyer. Per BD2412, the person taking the picture owns the copyright, even if it wasn't his camera. See User talk:BD2412#Work for hire question. DS1953 counters by giving a scenario where the bystander is merely acting as a self-timer might (i.e., giving no creative input to the shot), whereby the copyright still might belong to the camera's owner. In either case, it would be very difficult for the actual photographer to claim the copyright on it except by witness testimony (and really, there would be almost no motive to do so). Anyway, I have no opinion on this myself. howcheng {chat} 06:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all else fails surely the photo could be tagged as fair us as it is not replaceable with a free image? Madmedea 11:29, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permission asserted but link does not contain any indication of permission.  But|seriously|folks  01:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No proof that this is PD-military as asserted. Comes from website that says " Gallery: War Pictures, Photos and Images From Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Middle East Album: Collection of Abu Ghraib images from a variety of sources. afterdowningstreet.org supplied the images." Calliopejen1 18:34, 28 August 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what "attorneys have stated", if the photographer is unknown, they can't give permission for us to use the image here.  But|seriously|folks  02:04, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged cc-by-sa but source page indicates no commercial use.  But|seriously|folks  03:54, 28 July 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 G12 by Coredesat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image is video game screenshot. Isn't there some sort of speedy proceeduse for ones this obvious? — Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just attempted to speedy it now. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:28, 28 July 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: Deleted-FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the contributions of "Barryburton.jpg"'s uploader, and found a substantial number of images tagged as GFDL which appear to be screenshots, promotional pics or derivative works. I'm listing the following:

• Image:Gangrelwrestler.jpg
• Image:Bild11b.jpg
• Image:Kevinchinacrisis.jpg
• Image:RobFisher.jpg
• Image:Bobortonjr.jpg
• Image:Eddieguerrerowwe.jpg
• Image:Tbacd.jpg

--Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:36, 28 July 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 Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this image has been released into the public domain, under the GFDL, or under the CC-BY-SA. The source web site's reprint policy allows redistribution with attribution, but does not appear to allow derivative works. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:16, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD asserted but not documented. Image page states "approved for wikipedia use".  But|seriously|folks  05:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images by the same person who donated the images have been orphaned. You are welcome to delete. They have been replaced. Benjwong 22:58, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD asserted but not documented. Image page states "approved for wikipedia use".  But|seriously|folks  05:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images by the same person who donated the images have been orphaned. You are welcome to delete. They have been replaced. Benjwong 22:59, 28 July 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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bleh999 states in this edit that this is a still frame from the German newsreel Die Deutsche Wochenschau, which may possibly be PD-US as being seized wartime property. However, a search on NARA reveals 91 results matching this term. Now I didn't examine every single record, but I picked a few at random (such as [1]) and all of them say "Use Restrictions: Undetermined." howcheng {chat} 06:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what does this "undetermined" means for us? The copyright status of Die Deutsche Wochenschau is indeed quite interesting, it would be nice to know if they are copyrighted in Germany, and what about the copies seized by Allies and the Soviets? Perhaps a German-speaking person can dig something at this address: http://www.deutsche-wochenschau.de/ ? PS. For the record, I always find that the fact that any Nazi work is still copyrighted is quite strange.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Undetermined" means that we would have to consider it non-free and then its usage would be subject to the WP:NFCC which as you know are rather strict. I certainly wouldn't allow this use of this image if it were non-free. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar image is available from the Polish Foreign Ministry [2], they claim full copyright ownership but allow reuse for non-commercial purposes in the following terms:"The Minister of Foreign Affairs owns full and unrestricted property copyright to and in the promotional materials displayed on the www.poland.gov.pl/ww2/ website in all language versions, including in particular: logotypes, texts, photos, tables and graphs, covering all fields of exploitation and directed to an unlimited number of transmissions. The said materials may be used by governmental and non-governmental institutions for the promotion of Poland, in compliance with the directions of Polish foreign policy. They may not be used by Polish and foreign natural and legal persons for obtainment of financial gain." Does this address your concerns? Martintg 02:40, 21 August 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 Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubtful that the cover of a modern movie is licensed as GFDL. Dark Falls ^talk 07:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tagged it for speedy deletion. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined, but right now it's OR FU. Tagged as such. -- But|seriously|folks  18:40, 28 July 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 I5 by East718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of a famous Romanian company. The license of GFDL is contested, as I am sure the image is copyright Dark Falls ^talk 07:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is actually tagged PD-release, but the same argument applies, I am unconvinced that the uploader holds the copyright for the logo. If it was used in an article it could be considered fair use, but it currently isn't. Madmedea 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be a good case for ((PD-ineligible))((trademark)), since it's just text and a simple geometric shape (an oval). Anomie 13:51, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a video screenshot, hence not a free image. — Keb25 07:25, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader says the copyright is his and he has no license for use or releasing of rights. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:00, 28 July 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: Deleted-FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the contributions of "Image:Dumb.jpg" 's uploader, and found a large number of shots claimed as GFDL which are quite clearly publicity shots, but for which I didn't know the source. The images in question are:

• Image:Jameswan2.JPG
• Image:Eminem728.jpg
• Image:Eminemphoto.jpg
• Image:Eminem-makes-donation.jpg
• Image:Eminem727.jpg
• Image:Jameswan3.jpg

Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:11, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is granted only for use on Wikipedia. There is no indication this is a public domain image. — Tom (talk - email) 13:28, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indication this image is "copyright free" ... and if it is, why is a GFDL tag used? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:52, 28 July 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 G3 by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural listing. Declined speedy listed because: "This photo is not the uploader's own work as claimed, it was stolen from private collection and was widespread in the internet Speedy concern: This photo is not the uploader's own work as claimed, it was stolen from private collection and was widespread in the internet ". See talk page for uploader's response. Uploader appears to be using 2 usernames, by the way.  But|seriously|folks  17:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image could be a reason for Thai ICT Ministry to block Wikipedia, like what it has done to Youtube, and cause PROBLEMS. So, to anyone who can get rid of the image, please delete it quickly. This paragraph is written by pratchhemapanpairo in the name of Thai Wikipedia users. 30 July 2007

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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange public domain tag, plus image is creative commons non commercial according to flickr source. Garion96 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 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 Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural listing. Declined speedy. Reason was: "This photo has been taken from some forums, Magazine or other sources and it's not the uploader's original work as he claimed." See talk page for uploader's reply.  But|seriously|folks  18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader wrote: "I took this photograph myself and released it to the public domain. It might have been used by others in various websites or forums or whatever - I don't contest that - but they were able to use it because I released it to the public domain. MKPluto 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)."[reply]

Uploader indefinitely blocked as sock designed to circumvent WP policies. Uploaded a gajillion probably copyrighted images. Calliopejen1 18:54, 28 August 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 Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the copyrightholder (in this case the friend) can release the image into the public domain. Unless there is a OTRS permission this image can not be kept. Lokal_Profil 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the image quickly, I will seek the copyright holder's permission... Radagast1983 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's been almost two months. Deleted. -- But|seriously|folks  18:35, 23 September 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.