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⚡ 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubting that a news cutting counts as "a work of the Australian Government". — neuro^(talk) 02:00, 16 March 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⚡ 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement contradicts license ViperSnake151 02:33, 16 March 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 license corrected & FuR added. Skier Dude (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from copyrighted television program, highly unlikely that uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 02:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this image kept - the image serves its purpose in the article; it is a low resolution image and there is no obvious or immediate image available from Fox's PR department. Therefore by my reckoning it'd be classified as fair use to retain the image and keep it in the article.Christopher (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to retag it as fair use and add a rationale. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 31 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted material —EncMstr (talk) 05:57, 16 March 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⚡ 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-made? Huh? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:03, 16 March 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⚡ 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owning a photograph doesn't mean owning the copyright. No valid license specified. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:07, 16 March 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 as copyivio Low-resolution, uploader may not be copyright holder Stifle (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Copyvio of [1]. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:08, 17 April 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 discussion was: Kept, free.. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama doesn't apply in France, so this image may be non-free. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep. What Stifle says is true (see Commons:Freedom of Panorama#France). This structure certainly passes the threshold of originality, and the architect Auguste Perret died less than 70 years ago. It's clear that this photograph could not be published in France, and Common's wouldn't take it. But I'm uncertain whether its use violates U.S. copyright law. The Berne Convention requires the U.S. to honor France's copyright, and the U.S. does agree that a building is copyrighted. But the U.S. claims photos of buildings are not derivative works. U.S. copyright law Title 17, circular 92, § 120 says "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." If this photo was first published in the U.S., my reading is that the U.S. doesn't consider it a derivative work, even if France does. If I'm right, then it should be kept (with a note saying not to move it to Commons). – Quadell ^(talk) 17:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I asked Lupo about it (who is Wikipedia's unofficial copyright expert), and he says that this photo is free in the U.S., but Commons wouldn't accept it. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:29, 22 April 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⚡ 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo (Connecticut Huskies), highly unlikely uploader is copyright holder. — neuro^(talk) 19:12, 16 March 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⚡ 05:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent unfree image being used outside article namespace with no rationale. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Kept — image is marked as fair use, therefore is out of scope for PUF. However, I have tagged it for deletion as it has no rationale and is not used in the main namespace. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 31 March 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⚡ 17:15, 31 March 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⚡ 05:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent unfree image being used outside article namespace with no rationale. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Kept — image is marked as fair use, therefore is out of scope for PUF. However, I have tagged it for deletion as it has no rationale and is not used in the main namespace. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 31 March 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⚡ 17:15, 31 March 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⚡ 05:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent unfree image being used outside article namespace with no rationale. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Kept — image is marked as fair use, therefore is out of scope for PUF. However, I have tagged it for deletion as it has no rationale and is not used in the main namespace. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 31 March 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⚡ 17:15, 31 March 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: ineligible Apparent unfree image being used outside article namespace with no rationale. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - is this not covered by the "simple geometric shapes" = PD? I really have no idea, but I figure that I should ask :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This falls under ((PD-ineligible)) I think. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Y Kept. Firstly, images that are tagged as non-free are out of scope for PUF. Secondly, it's a ((PD-ineligible)) anyway. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 31 March 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Trying again, please do not speedy it this time) Invalid claims of license (zh redirects here for its claim the image is GFDL). Please provide a non wiki link proving the image is released under the GFDL. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Image previously licensed under GNU Free Documentation License. (see http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Foxgirl.jpg)" is not accurate. This image is copied from http://www.new-akiba.com/special/trading_figure/02/07.html. See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#File:Foxgirl.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyMrNinja (talk • contribs) - Moved from File:Foxgirl.jpg -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:40, 16 March 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.