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: Retagged as npd.– Quadell ^(talk) 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was uploaded by User:5b3TnY, who is apparently Denis Gray, as evidenced by his other image uploads. However, this image has confusing source information. It is described as a photo by Denis Gray, and gives the date and location where it was taken, but it also says, "image sourced from Vicious Kitten fanzine - photo gallery www.viciouskitten.net". —Bkell (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also File:Robinzander.jpg, which has the same source information. —Bkell (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that File:Robinzander.jpg, if Denis Gray is the copyright holder, should probably be tagged with ((Attribution|User:5b3TnY|Denis Gray)) rather than ((PD-self)), since the image description page says, "Terms of Use: All users of this image are required to attribute this work to 'Denis Gray'". —Bkell (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also File:Girlmonstar.jpg, which says "Original image located at http://www.girlmonstar.com/photos/gm6.jpg", and File:Sherry4.jpg, which says "courtesy www.girlmonstar.com". Based on User:5b3TnY's other image uploads, I think it's plausible that he was the photographer for these, but I'm not sure why he's crediting girlmonstar.com. If Denis Gray is the copyright holder, then File:Girlmonstar.jpg should probably be tagged with ((Attribution|User:5b3TnY|Denis Gray)) rather than ((PD-self)), since the image description page says, "Terms of Use: All users of this image are required to attribute this work to 'Denis Gray'". —Bkell (talk) 04:08, 7 June 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.

Out of scope. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Picasso died 1973, less than 70 years ago. The same applies to File:PP104.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair use. need to explain a point in the article. Deror (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed ((attribution)) since it is wrong & attribution is already implied by the copyrighted status.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:51, 8 June 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⚡ 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User uploaded image, stating "it is exclusively created for wikipedia". After this, a GFDL tag was added by another user. Opinions? Papa November (talk) 12:39, 7 June 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.

Out of scope; non-free image. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Painted 1964 by Marc Chagall, who died 1985, less than 70 years ago; no Freedom of Panorama in France. Same for File:PG147.jpg. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair use. No free picture can be available. Deror (talk) 15:58, 7 June 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⚡ 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first File:PG142.jpg was only used in a gallery on User:Deror avi. He now added it to the Palais Garnier article, with a very confused free-use rationale. The files also still have the ((attribution)) template, although he does not have the right to license these derivative works on a free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper is seemed upset due to a fight with a project of the foundation he is trying to close at the commons and is trying to get back at me. These fair use images have been uploaded to be used according to the fair use rational at these articles (and these alone). According to Israeli Law, at the time of taking the picture, every derivative work (even fair use) must be also attributed. hense the attribution sign. Deror (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the ((attribution)) template, Deror says that he allows anyone to use the Chagall photo for any purpose, and permits redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use. But Deror does not have the right to grant such permissions on a work that he does not own the full copyright of. (Deror says he is a lawyer.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First is the fair use template, then is the attribution. They must be read in order. First fair use rational is used and the artist must be credited, then the photographer according to the Law (both Israeli and French Law - both applicable). Deror (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deror, there's no need to have the attribution template, since that's implied by the copyrighted status. I'll remove it momentarily, ending this childish bickering.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:47, 8 June 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. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the image from scratch, in a low resolution. I chose 'public domain', which apparently was the incorrect license choice. Is there another license to use to keep this image? -- Aatrek / _^TALK 16:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is certainly protected by trademark, but the design is far too simple for copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:05, 12 June 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason Mustafa1702 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 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.