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: keep. No reason to believe uploader does not own the copyright to this image. — ξ^xplicit 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's problem, guys? Must I give written persmission before each upload or what? This wiki media policy doesn't work. When I upload something - I will share it. I am a sole author of every foto I upload. Fotos removal without any notification angers me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruig25 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can select the permission as you upload the photo. When you go to upload, select "I made this photo" and then scroll down. There should be a drop down menu that lets you choose the permissions. You'd probably want to choose "CC-by-3.0 attribution," which is our standard notice. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:04, 22 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 discussion was: Keep, now claimed as fair use and outside the scope of WP:PUF. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cartlesdecine.com is quoted as a source and yet is not registered as a domain name to anyone. Consequently the source is doubtful and copyright of this scan or photo cannot be determined. Ash (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PUF has changed to the more accurate di-no permission.—Ash (talk) 04:19, 10 September 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⚡ 21:03, 17 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image, uploaded by User:Slovenian military-patriot as his own work, has originally been published at the website of the Josip Križaj Ajdovščina Aeroclub.[1][2] There is no confirmation that the original author and Slovenian military-patriot are the same person. The uploader has already been warned about uploading copyrighted images several times.[3] Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:37, 10 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the author is unknown, how can it be said that the image has been released into the public domain? Stifle (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is clearly bogus, and should be changed. But the image is almost certainly PD. The photo was taken before 1910, perhaps long before that date. It was also almost certainly published before the War; where else would the author of this article, from which the image is copied, have found it, if not in some publication? If that publication happened before 1923 (very likely) then it's PD. Lithuania has a 70-year copyright term, so if the photo was published anonymously before 1939, or if it was published with a known author who died by 1939, it's PD. Given events in the area, the odds that the author survived much past 1940 are very small, so even if it's not PD yet it surely will be in a year or three. In light of all this, it would be foolish to delete the image. The one thing we can be absolutely certain of is that no copyright owner is going to suddenly emerge and sue WP or anyone else for using it. So why should we delete it? Let's decide which PD tag is most appropriate, and go with it; if we can't have absolute proof, so what?

In the alternative, a case could surely be made for fair use.

OTOH, I have replaced the image at Template:Rabbi-stub with one that we know beyond all doubt to be PD.

-- Zsero (talk) 16:04, 11 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: Editor kept adding and was unresponsive. Now blocked and images deleted. ↪REDVERS ^{I dreamt about stew last night} 10:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a professional shot; it was uploaded with a remarkable number of other professional shots from a remarkable number of other clubs. Perhaps the author has a bike? ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also attaching the following:

• File:Efrem.jpg
• File:Karipidis.jpg (found, with different crop, on TinEye)
• File:Makridis.jpg
• File:Eliasc.jpg (first hit on a search for the name with Google Images)
• File:Zlogar.jpg
• File:Christofi.jpg
• File:Giorgallidis.jpg
• File:Aguiar.jpg (on player's profile at SkySports.com)
• File:Kaseke.jpg
• File:Grammozis.jpg
• File:Cissepan.jpg
• File:Pittaras.jpg
• File:Kaiafas.jpg
• File:Buyse.jpg
• File:Aloneftis.jpg

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⚡ 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sourced to www.robindelcastillo.com - no proof that this has been released under CC license Skier Dude (talk) 19:22, 10 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 discussion was: Withdrawn. Nominator's misunderstanding. —teb728 t c 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The description says it is "A Sausage Tree in use as an airport departure lounge." The tree in the photo is obviously not inside a lounge; so it looks to me that what is in the lounge is a photo of a tree by someone else, which the uploader has no right to redistribute. —teb728 t c 21:07, 10 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure city-data.com copyrights everything. Fair use rational seems circular to me. Abductive (reasoning) 23:10, 10 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 discussion was: deleted (again). Can be found in numerous places in the web, some in higher resolution, although most seem to have disappeared now and can only still be seen in caches. Nonetheless, lacking a response from the uploader, it's clear enough, and he would have to provide some proof that he owns copyright. Amalthea 09:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a movie still that has been on the web for a while. The pd-self tag is definitely incorrect -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one such usage on the web. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:31, 10 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.