The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Kept, reasonable explanation provided. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image likely sourced from a website given its size. Polly (Parrot) 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author did claim it was his own photograph in his edit summary to MS Adventure of the Seas [1], and the photo does have EXIF data, somewhat unusual for a web image. Did a quick web search but only found one instance which was copied from wikipedia after it was uploaded here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it looks like the same user only later uploaded it to Flickr. But they had earlier released this lower-resolution version to the public domain. Uploaded here in March 2007 and uploaded to Flickr in August 2007. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2009 (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 image 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: Kept and re-tagged as ((PD-Art)) (for lack of a ((PD-scan)) tag here). Unlike the disputed UK paintings these where probably just popped in a scanner, so no "sweat of the brow" copyright claim would be possible. --Sherool (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital reproduction of PD work from UK source Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also

• File:Londonstreetmusicianc.1880.jpg
• File:Londonstreetmusiciansc.1880.jpg
• File:Kiwiperformersc.1906.jpg
• File:Zulumusiciansc.1900.jpg

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. ((PD-art)) is still policy, despite the current kerfuffle on Commons about the NPG legal threats. Nothing has changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scans (as opposed to photographs of carefully-lit subjects) are also typically not protected in the UK, per Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. These would not fall under PD-Art. The UK does not allow copyright on just any "digital reproduction". Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2009 (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 image 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.

Kept, per WP:AGF, in the absence of any evidence that would establish a prima facie case of infringement. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely sourced from a website, small image size & no meta data. Polly (Parrot) 00:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this could also be the result of poor-quality image editing. Not all self-made photos are high resolution or come with metadata: see this image, taken by someone I know personally, for an example. Of course, if you find this image online elsewhere, that will be different. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2009 (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 image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely sourced from a website given its size. Polly (Parrot) 00:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, tineye found two places: [2] and [3]. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (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 image 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 Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If http://www.imagesofafrica.co.uk/ - Not GFDL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to have been scooped from webpage and no authority, definitely not CC3. No evidence of claim of fair use. billinghurst (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/features/20011226well_known_cardinal.htm, but this website credits "Sunday Observer of December 23, 2001" as original source. No indication the content has been released under GFDL 1.2 (Sri Lankan government website claims copyright over its own material at the foot of the http://www.priu.gov.lk/ homepage). --DeLarge (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Sri Lanka newspaper images are in a library of Lake House the publisher of the said newspaper and they are available to be copied from them by paying only the scanning charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanka007 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial cover artwork, uploader unlikely to hold copyright Polly (Parrot) 15:05, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial cover artwork, uploader unlikely to hold copyright. Polly (Parrot) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo from a TV show. I doubt it is freely licensed. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you doubt it's freely licensed but my understanding is since I own the copyright I can do whatever I want with it. When I uploaded it I indicated the copyright status and claimed correctly that I own the image. Why is it so hard for you people to believe that the copyright holder is also the uploader? But I'm actually sick and tired of uploading my own copyrighted images for my own shows and then having a moron such as yourself doubt the veracity of my claim. Delete it I don't care anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doverpro110 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (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 image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web resolution image, unused. I have asked the uploader about this image and others, but they have not responded. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web resolution image, unused. I have asked the uploader about this image and others, but they have not responded. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web resolution image. I have asked the uploader about this image and others, but they have not responded. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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 the terms of their website is very clear. The trimmed e-mails archived at Wikipedia:Pictures from cityoflondon.gov.uk Details (wich I will list on WP:MFD) are less than clear, the user who contacted them just said that the project runs under "copyleft" GDFL, but did not explain what that means (most "normal" people don't know what the GFDL is today, let alone back in 2004), and left the door open to just use 300px images under a specific permission. It was never explained that they would need to irrevocably allow commercial use and derivative works (both of wich are explicitly forbidden by their standard terms of use both at the time[4] and currently as noted by the nominator). In the reply it was simply stated that it was ok to use the images, nothing about them being free for any purpose. It should be noted that back then ((permission)) was considered a perfectly valid license tag[5] (it was not until May 2005 Jimbo initiated "the great purge" of "py permission" and "non-commercial only" works[6]), so it is understandable that the issue was not pressed at the time, but I would not consider those e-mails as proof that the images can be freely used for any purpose, which is what we require today. --Sherool (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead source/permission link - http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/corporation/legal_notices/legal_notices.htm says non commerical only. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also -

• File:London Mansion House Corp of London.jpg
• File:Robert Finch Lord Mayor of London Corp of London.jpg

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'em. Archive.org is your friend.--Elvey (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any evidence that these images are free? Have you checked Archive.org? J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pictures from cityoflondon.gov.uk Details seems relevant. The link to that (one level of indirection) is in the Licensing area of all three photos. Providing high-resolution downloads (which you can see with archive.org; the fact that a source link is now dead is irrelevant) does seem a bit at odds with that overall website copyright notice. Still, that notice was the only "legal" think linked from the original photo archive page, though it probably was part of a standard setup for all their pages. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That email would need to be sent in, in full and without redactions, to permissions-enwikimedia.org. These images are liable to be deleted otherwise. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was correspondence from 2004/5, when I don't think the above process existed at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2009 (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 image 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 Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a publicity photo. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2009 (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: kept w/license & FuR as updated. Skier Dude (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious screenshot from a music video. Polly (Parrot) 20:25, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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.

Kept, PD as a work of the US federal government. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website linked to is all rights reserved, no indication of public domain. Polly (Parrot) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This website is a website of the United States mission to the European Union, part of the State Department, which is a part of the U.S. Federal Government. This information was provided in the file description. Beagel (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the copyright notice on the site seems kind of strange and spurious. This is a state department website and image. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site's credit page says: Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the USEU web site is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. Mission to the European Union as source of the information is appreciated. If a copyright is indicated, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. That is a pretty clear indication of public domain, and is the typical U.S. government website statement. The copyright notice at the bottom is rather odd; maybe it is part of a website software's template that wasn't changed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2009 (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 image 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art for music single, uploader unlikely to hold copyright. Polly (Parrot) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I have added an unsourced template as no sourcing is provided. The uploader has uploaded a lot of images without proper sourcing, at least one of which has been found to be taken from a copyrighted website, and I suspect the rest are as well. I warned the user that any further such uploads would result in a block, and since that warning has been ignored I have carried this out. I have left another note with the user saying that his block will be lifted if he agrees to follow copyright policies. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:06, 14 July 2009 (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.