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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is actually licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0, which seems legitimate. NW (Talk) 01:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one is PD due to nonrenewal of copyright. Taken by a staff photographer of the (long defunct) LA Daily News, which apparently didn't renew any of their copyrights: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html state that the copyright of this photograph was not renewed? In fact, the site itself states, "Artwork, photographs, dramas, music, and other types of works appearing in periodicals, as well as material that originally appeared elsewhere, may also have been registered separately, and are not represented here. Check these categories where appropriate." Furthermore, if this photograph was not published at that time, then the "no copyright renewal" angle is wrongly applied. Jappalang (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per the information at the Online Archive of California, the researcher (uploader) should have contacted the possible author (or heirs) to establish the copyrights behind this photo. Without the results of such research, this image cannot be claimed to be in public domain (especially since "no copyright renewal" is not proven). Jappalang (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are being overzealous. This is a staff photograph, published in a long-defunct newspaper that renewed none of its copyrights. It is PD for non-renewal.

• RETAIN per above. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:59, 10 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is actually licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0, which seems legitimate. NW (Talk) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See file above, same comments apply. PD, as stated on file page. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above, no evidence that "no copyrights renewed" applies. Jappalang (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per reasons given for PUF of File:Helen Gahagan Douglas.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• RETAIN, per reasons given for PUF of File:Helen Gahagan Douglas.jpg. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:00, 10 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 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 Skier Dude (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:AirwaveLogoWi.png

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies.

• File:AirwaveTechWi-01.jpg

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies is copyright and the source is here.

• File:AirwaveTechWi-02.jpg

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies is copyright and the source is here.

• File:AirwaveTechWi-04.jpg

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies is copyright and a similar image is seen here.

• File:AirwaveTechWi-05.jpg

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies is copyright and the source is here.

• File:AirwaveTechWi-06.jpg

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies is copyright and the source is here.

• File:AirwaveTechWi-08.jpg

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies is copyright and the source is here.

• File:AirwaveTechWi-03.jpg

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies is copyright and is similar in quality and style to others by same uploader.

• File:AirwaveTechWi-07.jpg

Delete: orphaned non-free image dependent on deleted article Airwave Technologies is copyright and the source is here. ww2censor (talk) 03:47, 28 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.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to believe this photo has been licensed under the stated license. —teb728 t c 06:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Source of file is a website. Doesn't qualify for fair use. No indication that the website owner and the poster are the same person. J.H (talk) 03:07, 7 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 David Fuchs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sourcing information included. Ash (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed the advice of Teahot conerning changing the status of this file, it really seems complicated, would you mind helping me adjusting the appropriate description, I have obtained an image that is older than 100 years and adjusted it to become publishible, does that make me the owner? what is the most appropriate status of this file? Andibernard (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't specified the source. Where did you get it from? How do you know how old it is? What adjustment(s) did you make? —teb728 t c 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) At the previous PUF discussion you said you got it from "a historic website about the Zengid Dynasty". Where specifically? Where does "the publisher of that website gave the rights of publications"? (For example was it at http://www.microsoft.com?) —teb728 t c 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. There is an earlier PUF discussion for this file at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 20#File:Coat of Arms of Zengid Dynasty.JPG. Since the link on the file points here, perhaps that discussion should be considered superseded by this one. —teb728 t c 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I got the pic from [1], I know it's old because it is the coat of arms of the Zengid Dynasty, and it goes back to the 11th century, Never the less I have emailed the administrator, but never got a response.the adjustments I have made were increasing the size to make it more visible. Andibernard (talk) 22:32, 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 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: Y Kept - valid fair use claim. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate logo. I doubt this has been released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EMFM crew have released it under a free license. I am part of the EMFM crew and of behalf of them uploaded this image to Wikipedia to be used in the article Radio EMFM (Techgeek2007 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Currently, tagged as ((Non-free logo)) and orphaned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:11, 5 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 discussion was: Kept per ((PD-US)). Stifle (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skepetical about this being a PD-Self if it's a 1907 image . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is 1907, it is in the public domain. The caption and pixelation shows that it was published. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:19, 28 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 Night Gyr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged as missing licensing/source information, but then another user made the claim that the image was somehow property of the US Department of Education. Perhaps the user isn't American, but I teach here, and I can say with some certainty that the work we do as school employees would not normally revert to the federal level. This yearbook photo would thus be non-free. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The copyright for the photo most likely belongs to the photographer hired by the school or the school itself, not the federal gov't. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:45, 30 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical of Self calim - given other uploads by this user Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:27, 28 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⚡ 06:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From title and posing- Supect this is a promo photo connected to Harry Potter Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:16, 28 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⚡ 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFR but claimed as CC-BY-SA Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 28 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⚡ 01:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFR but claimed as CC-BY-SA Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:11, 5 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 as G7 by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFP picture taken without any consent, subject is dead and this was cited as reason for 'fair use' but that in itself doesn't justify using an AFP picture Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:11, 5 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader says that it's under creative commons and that they are the copyright holder, however, they also direct the copyright to FERA, who has this note about copyright. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason Angushearmon (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Apologies - I am Food and Environment research agency External comms manager and have given the permission - will expand comment[reply]

Alright, that clears things up. Thank you for the clarification. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:09, 28 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.