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⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tag says author's work, but link given is to a poster website. Given that the individual also uploaded an unlicensed Alison Mack picture, I think this one is questionable as well. — Ebyabe 01:36, 14 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.

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⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says it's PD. Liftarn 07:02, 14 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.

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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trainweb's image use page (retrieved 2007-09-14) states:

"Before using a photograph from TrainWeb, examine the page where you found the photograph. Make sure there is a TrainWeb copyright at the bottom of the page where you found the photo and make sure that there is no other indication on the page that the photo belongs to someone else. When TrainWeb uses photos from others on our pages, we do so with permission and make it very obvious that we do not own the rights to those photographs. The above free use policy applies only to photos owned and copyright by TrainWeb."

The image page on TrainWeb states "Image © A J Hamblyn". Therefore, it appears that this image does not qualify for free use. The fair use rationale states that it is replaceable. Slambo (Speak) 11:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is actually replaceable now. All the QR class locomotives are out of use, sold, and I think exported out of New Zealand. I think it's not unreasonable to assume you cannot see this locomotive in the depicted livery any more. - Axver 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitant about this listing for just that reason. But the main problem of copyrights and use remains - we're claiming that the image was obtained properly, but my interpretation of TrainWeb's usage page is different from the uploader's. I'm not as well versed in New Zealand railways as I am in North American railways, and a photo of a livery that is no longer used is hard to replace, so I went with the text on the image page here that says it is replaceable. Slambo (Speak) 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe they're not seen anymore. Since I saw in some recent photos that they're still there, I assumed that the photo is replacable, so I put it in the rationale. It doesn't really need to be in the article, but I would like in there to show what the QRs were and their livery. If a free image equivalent is available, be my guest and replace it. It's not a nessecity to the article if it ends up being deleted. カラム 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment about the copyright status, as I'm in no way knowledgeable about that or what to do, i.e. whether the photo has to go or if we can change the licencing/rationale. I can only really comment on whether it can be replaced. These locomotives are definitely out of service in New Zealand now. I agree that the photo helps to illustrate the topic, as it's all we've got of the QR class rather than its rebuild, the DQ class. I think it is not absolutely essential, but certainly an inclusion that enhances the encyclopaedic nature of the article. - Axver 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the replaceability. There are enough fallen flags in North America that I can understand that point easily. So, let's work on ensuring that the image is properly licensed; failing that, we'll need to find a suitable image in this livery. The question remains, can we use this image to illustrate the older livery under fair use according to the image use page on Trainweb? If not, we need to delete this image and find another. My interpretation is that we cannot use this image for the reasons stated above. Slambo (Speak) 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this class has been retired, the image could possibly be kept if a proper fair use rationale is added. Superm401 - Talk 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete this photo for now. As the uploader says, it's not really needed in the article. It is nice, yes, but I don't feel that outweighs the negatives of it having an unfree license and a watermark. I'd urge the uploader to try to get ahold of the photographer and ask for an image of this particular type of locomotive released under an appropriate free license. kmccoy (talk) 03:56, 4 November 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot used in lieu of a free photo to identify band rather than to provide commentary on the video. Deiz talk 13:47, 14 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.

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 Yamla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Uploader is Joshua Quinn, member of band and designer of image. All copyright to the image belongs to Joshua Quinn

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Picasso estate claims copyright on basically all Picasso paintings, also in the U.S. The estate has filed so-called "Notices of Intent to Enforce" (NIE) such copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office. The NIE for this image is here as "La [sic] vieux guitariste aveugle". The image description page presents no evidence that this work was published before 1923 (or 1909), and neither does the article Blue Period. Without such evidence, the image cannot be considered ((PD-art-US)), but maybe a "fair use" claim could be made. Lupo 16:07, 14 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.

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⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The NIEs for this image are here and here (various autoportraits). Lupo 16:11, 14 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.

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 RG2 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public picture from the website of the MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: no idea if commercial reuse and derivative works are allowed; OTRS permission requested (possibly) O (说 • 喝) 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for deletion. I see no proof the copyright holder (presumably Chinese government) has actually granted permission. Superm401 - Talk 23:56, 1 November 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source page, the copyright holder is Mustang Video, not New Millenium Video. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:47, 14 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.

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⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source page, the copyright holder is apparently Rascal Video, not New Millenium Video. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:49, 14 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.

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 Mushroom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acom doesn't seem to know what he owns or creates. This image exceeds the quality of his apparent photographic skills, and requires a very good telescope, such as a $1 billion 10-metre world-class observatory telescope — 132.205.44.5 21:40, 14 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.

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 Mushroom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acom doesn't seem to know what he owns or creates. This image exceeds the quality of his apparent photographic skills, and requires a very good telescope, such as a $1 billion 10-metre world-class observatory telescope — 132.205.44.5 21:40, 14 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.