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: deleted - it is orphaned, and there is no proof that the '78 book was under the copyright claimed. No prejudice to restoring if PD-Pre78 can be proven Skier Dude (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC) The description page says this is page 18 of "principia discordia". According to Principia Discordia, it was published in 1965, so I don't see any reason to believe it is public domain. B (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He released it under a sort of "anti-copyright". ViperSnake151  Talk  01:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And even if that anti-copyright doesn't hold up as a copyleft license, it was still published before 1978 without a valid copyright notice per ((PD-Pre1978)). IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 1 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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original file was deleted, most probably because it became unfree due to cancellation of ((PD-Russia)). The original photo was made in 1947. Blacklake (talk) 07:34, 20 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: keep see also user talk of user:netalarm & user:J Milburn and User talk:90.197.219.30 for clarification. Skier Dude (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old image, uncertain sourcing. Originally tagged as lacking permission, uploader simply removed the deletion notice. Unless the copyright holder can be acertained (and, if necessary, permission sent to OTRS) this image should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, James Richard Wilding, am the copyright holder of the image. I photographed it in 1954 and have hereby released it online and on wikipedia under its license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.219.30 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the original photographer? Who took the photograph that this picture is of? J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original photographer, James Richard Wilding (sorry about the user, I forgot to log in and have done just now so no 'sock puppeting'). I took the photograph in 1954 and it is of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Col Duncan Carter-Campbell.--Craigenputtock (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I am the original photographer, I know for a fact that it is entitled to be used on wikipedia etc as I have given my permission for the license.--Craigenputtock (talk) 16:33, 20 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 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of a website. I doubt this is released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What license should a screenshot be released under? I see a lot of Wikipedia entries use logos.

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 updated to ((pd-textlogo)) (and asked for size reduction :) Skier Dude (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate logo. I doubt this has been released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what should a corporate logo be released under? Other logos are being used on Wikipedia as fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsaldee (talk • contribs)

Here, ((pd-textlogo)), cause its barely enough anyway. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is probably ((PD-textlogo)) per ViperSnake151. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:22, 23 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 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 as updated to ((PD-old)). Skier Dude (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muddled sourcing. Is this PD? Is it CC? Who owns the rights? Where is the evidence they have released the rights? CSD notices constantly removed, a PUI discussion is probably a better method. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, James Richard Wilding, am a descendant of the artist and own the portrait. Being a qualified copyright lawyer, I know that the image can be released under this licensee under my (the owner) permission. I hereby grant this image of the portrait, photographed by myself, to be used online and on wikipedia under its licensing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.219.30 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the original photographer? J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, James Richard Wilding, am the original photographer and photographed it on 19 July 2009--90.197.219.30 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Who created the painting? J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a painting by Sir Henry Raeburn, an ancestor of mine, and I am in possession of the painting. I can give you many examples of files all over wikipedia painted by Raeburn and used on wikipedia.--90.197.219.30 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted out the licensing with user user:Netalarm please view my and his talk page for consolidation.--90.197.219.30 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this issue has been sorted, so I shall now finally remove your deletion tags. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me or any questions about copyright in general.--90.197.219.30 (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what year did the artist die? Are the images in the public domain, or not? If so, we can just change the copyright notice to a public domain one and not have to continue with discussion regarding this issue. J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is on wikipedia and is considerably well known, Sir Henry Raeburn. The images are in the public domain I believe.--Craigenputtock (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then consider this nomination withdrawn, as the image is clearly PD. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please ask you to change the licensing if you believe it is necessary as I am not familiar with how to change it. Or give me instructions. Thanks--Craigenputtock (talk) 16:16, 20 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 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional image, no evidence uploader holds copyright. Polly (Parrot) 18:41, 20 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: procedural "keep" as discussed as noted below Skier Dude (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With no source information it is not clear that this image can be classified as public domain. Teahot (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was obtained from a historic website about the Zengid Dynasty, the publisher of that website gave the rights of publications to everyone Andibernard (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I am not sure whether when I uploaded the the image I included the right discription, I would appreciate any expert help so we can provide the accurate discription to calssify it in the public domain Andibernard (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. There is a later PUF for this file at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 28#File:Coat of Arms of Zengid Dynasty.JPG. Perhaps this PUF should be considered superseded by that one. —teb728 t c 20:57, 31 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 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a TV screenshot or promotional photo; unlikely that uploader was up in Switzerland to watch this training. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:46, 20 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: File does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I purchased the original negative of this photograph some years ago and I am the current copyright holder. Cardena (talk) 22:27, 20 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.