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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moros i cristians2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Can't locate original source. Kelly ^hi! 00:04, 3 January 2011 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Lottery play here! sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Lottery play here!21 sign.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2011 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salvadormap.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Need more information on source to determine copyright status. Kelly ^hi! 01:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also File:Germanymap.gif. Kelly ^hi! 06:18, 3 January 2011 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:James B Conant 1941.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Although it's part of the NYWT&S collection at the Library of Congress,[1] it's identified as an Associated Press photo and copyright is likely held by the AP. Only photos made by the NYWT&S staff photographers are in the public domain.[2] Kelly ^hi! 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I uploaded this nearly five years ago before I gained a fuller appreciation of the fine points of copyright. I have substituted File:James B Conant 1948 cropped.jpg for the disputed image in the articles Interim Committee and James Bryant Conant. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2011 (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 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SchwoebelGB1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Conhflicted license. I have no way to verify whether this is a non-free image or in the public domain, and both are claimed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 3 January 2011 (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⚡ 09:22, 3 January 2011 (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 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 as G3 by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Einsteinmanofyear.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not free image LK (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2011 (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 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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MarketStreet2005.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No authorship/copyright information on depicted 3D artwork. Kelly ^hi! 06:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photo. It is wholly my own work and I release it unreservedly and totally into the public domain. If the wording on the photo page doesn't represent that, please let me know how to word it. The criteria for how one releases a Wikipedia photo to the public domain has changed a few times.... Moncrief (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My research shows that the sculpture in question is the Admission Day Monument by Douglas Tilden (1861-1935). Here are the scenarios:
  • Work first published or registered on or before December 22, 1922: In public domain due to age
  • Work first published or registered from January 1, 1923 to December 31, 1963: Check to see if it was renewed; if not, public domain; if so, still under copyright that will expire 95 years from publication
  • Work first published or registered from January 1, 1964 to December 31, 1977: Under copyright that will expire 95 years from publication
  • Work first published or registered from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 2002: Will be under copyright through December 31, 2047
  • Else: entered the public domain on January 1, 2006 upon the 70th anniversary of Tilden's death.
  • Also, this work may also be in the public domain under certain conditions if the notice requirement was not satisfied during a publication. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tilden's monument was completed in 1897.[3] It is in the public domain. I took the photograph; it is also in the public domain. All clear? Moncrief (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is not when it was created but rather when it was published according to the Copyright Act (of 1909 or 1976, as appropriate). Until publication (or the 1976 Act), California copyright law would apply indefinitely, as the 1909 Act does not preempt state law for unpublished works. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear lord. I took the photograph. Never in my 7 years on Wikipedia have I seen such pickiness. Do you really think that a photograph I took and release without restriction into the public domain of a 100-year-old statue violates copyright law? In that case, most of the photos in Flickr and everywhere else online are in violation too. Heavens, people. Moncrief (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on [4] at Commons, barring evidence that Tilden intended to restrict photography of the sculpture, it would appear to have been published upon its erection in 1897, and so ((PD-1923)) should apply. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:03, 7 January 2011 (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 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amauta.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Terms aren't sufficiently clear to establish public domain claim.[5] Kelly ^hi! 06:46, 3 January 2011 (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 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⚡ 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gesualdo Bufalino.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source, date, or authorship information to establish copyright. The source at it Wikipedia[6] doesn't contain this information either. Kelly ^hi! 17:04, 3 January 2011 (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 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⚡ 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Beseler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source for image - can't be found at de Wikipedia[7] or on Commons.[8] Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Text say it's from de-wiki. I found this there: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Hans_Beseler.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 The files was deleted there per this. There is not enouth info to verify that this is free. --MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2011 (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 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⚡ 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doon school lamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems that this file is a reupload of File:Doonlamp.jpg that was deleted as a copyvio. MGA73 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I cannot confirm that it is truly free: I got it from a website that was offering it under a Creative Commons license, but now I realize that the site was simply mirroring an old version of this article that contained the image, so it has become a circular reference... Spy99 (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2011 (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 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⚡ 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sawtry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source is stated as http://fvbt2008.dnsalias.net/?page_id=9 but I can not acces the page to verify that source releases the file under a free license. Perhaps someone else can? MGA73 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2011 (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 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:LFSR-17bit.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Can't locate original source. Kelly ^hi! 23:21, 3 January 2011 (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 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⚡ 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:225px-Sasikumar 02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source simply says "2009 Creative Commons License". There is no clear indication that I could find saying which specific CC license it is under. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:58, 3 January 2011 (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.