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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gujar Khan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Google Maps image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:41, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No assertion the uploader has permission or is Mr. Mitchell. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:01, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Broomfield village sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per Commons:Commons:FOP#United_Kingdom there is FOP for 3D but not 2D. This is a sign where the text is raised a little above the background so per Commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet we could claim that it is 3D but I've been told that by British standards this would be 2D. MGA73 (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per Commons:Commons:FOP#United_States there is no FOP except for buildings. This is a sign with a lot of text (too long to be PD-ineligible) and a relief. MGA73 (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prison logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a logo. However it is made of 4 simple elements (a star, a moon etc.) and if it is 50 yrs old we could use Template:PD-Malaysia but there is no info about the age. MGA73 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NZ-NZIC-Badge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is the New Zealand Intelligence Corps badge. It could be PD after Commons:Template:PD-New Zealand, but we need a bit more info to verify that it is PD. Also there is no source so we do not know who made this jpg-version. MGA73 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dmkirwin 05.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Picture of a painting (derivative work). The uploader claims to be the artist who painted the painting. Uploader seems to be long gone so adding a "no permission" would probably result in a deletion without uploader ever noticed. Unless uploader reads this we have to delete because there is no proof of permission or we could trust that uploader is the artist. The picture is unused. MGA73 (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montana Mines Postmark.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• US stamp - could be changed to fair use with ((Non-free USGov-USPS stamp)) if NFCC can be satisfied.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a scan from my collection. Whats the problem? Are you telling me that a postmark is not public domain???????Coal town guy (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag. Its MY scan, MY Postmark, from MY collection. This is an absurd application of this standard. I acknoledged I was the owner and the copyright hjolder. Its also a public domain document, a postmark, how is a postmark I created from my collection private AFTER I gave the rights to publish it?Coal town guy (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove tag until the discussion is closed. I re-added it so that anyone who has an opinion about whether this file should be deleted or not can find the deletion discussion. The nomination was made because of the stamp in the photo. You do not own the rights to that stamp, the US Postal Service does. For more information see the template that the nominator listed (((Non-free USGov-USPS stamp))). Basically unless you have an image sans the stamp you cannot use it. That is unless it is used in an article about the stamp specifically and then it needs the appropriate tag and a fair-use rational. Therefore I say delete per not free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stamp has been cancelled, it is by sheer fiat, a public domain item. I say NO, DONT DELETE it because its a fair use public domain article. I say, the postmark covered a PORTION of the stamp. You cant by law deny fair use to public artcile especially since its cancelled and desinged to be used by the public for a public or private purposesCoal town guy (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LEGALLY, YES I DO have a RIGHT to a stamp. Its in the constitution of my country. I am not selling the design or right to have the stamp. It is again public domain.Coal town guy (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVED MY IMAGE FROM THE ARTICLE. Dont ever tell me my rights again. Wikipedia or not. Its brazenly insulting to be censured for a legal right for an article I own. Censure yourselvesCoal town guy (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you do not own the copyright to the stamp. It is the work of the US Postal Service (not the US Government_ and therefore unless they release it as public domain, it is not and they still retain the copyright to it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you cant read the law as well. I do not intend to resell the image, to distribute the image and the image is a partial it is not the total. While yes, post 78 stamps are Copyrighted by the US Post Office, Its been cancelled, its a partial, and the intent (which is why we have copyright laws) was not to resell, it is again to buttress the content of an article. A postmark is the de facto way to declare the existence of a community. It is beyond obvious the intenmt of the usage of the partial image was for the postmark. I could not care less how you wish to censure data, and not again, read the Wiki rules on fair use.Coal town guy (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The stamp is not the subject of the image (the postmark is, based on its title), and it's not entirely included in the scan. Part of the stamp could probably be cropped from the image as well. I'm no expert on the law, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a part of a copyrighted work which is incidentally in the background of an image of a different subject should not make the whole image a copyright violation. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the stamp is not the subject does not mean that there isn't a copyright. The US Postal Service is a seperate corporation and they own the rights to the image. The stamp also takes up over half of the image. That being said, it isn't really in the background of the image. Also, per USPS's website they may not be the only owner of copyright. So, methinks that there is a chance the tag mentioned before (((Non-free USGov-USPS stamp))) wouldn't cover it without verifying that there isn't another owner. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I have to say its the exact wrong application of the standard. Wikipedia does state that there are ways to describe the image in that it butresses the content of the article. I could, edit the image, make it look totally ludicrous and post it It will have the color blue around the letters. Would this satisfy the absurdist application of this rule? If so, I advise you look ay any and all images on Wikipedia of any public figure as they are wearing clothing with logos, did all of the coporations give their permission for their logo to be displayed. No. Why not ask all of those images be removed as well? Obviously, someone wants to make their word be heard in the precisely incorrect way to apply a standard. I have removed the image from the article. You may wish to take note, applying standards in a haphazard and incorrect manner does nothing to help the cause of having people actually contribute to Wikipedia in any forumCoal town guy (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MANY THANKS!!!!! It will be a cold day in hell before I EVER upload a scanned image I MADE from MY COLLECTION to contribribute to this effort. WOW, you showed me.Coal town guy (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or No? If I blur the stamp image, Could I then use the Image???

I'm not sure on that. But lots of your images for postmarks are very well done. I would be less likely to fight it if you cropped the image to where less of the stamp showed. Like File:Thursday WV Postmark.jpg is. That is so little of the image that no one could possibly steal the image and avoid copyright. I would also recommend checking your other uploads and do the same for those as well. The less of the stamp, the less likely it is to be deleted. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done so. Hence why I am asking. I do have postmarks with NO STAMP AT ALL (EGAD). I will use those. And I do have some from the late 19th century which I also plan to use. How about I edit the offending image, POST IT and you can take a good hard long look at it and if it can pass the muster there, can I assume that it wont be challenged?? Apparently, the proclaimed gold standard is UNKNOWN thus here I am trying my ass off to contribute. Is THAT OK???Coal town guy (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded an edited image. It would be sheer and utter folly and perhaps a biblical level of effort would prove fruitless to determine the stamp design. IS THAT OK???Coal town guy (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have taken it too far. I was thinking leave it in there (like the file above, I fixed the link) but just crop it on the side right after the postmark. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate that you looked at the image. It has no stamp, it fits the standardCoal town guy (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clarion Alley Mural Project, Mission District, San Francisco.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's a mural = 2D artwork, needs the permission from the artist.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:28, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jessica Ahlquist 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Taken from http://progressive-charlestown.blogspot.com/2012/02/give-to-jessica-ahlquist-scholarship.html claims CC-BY-SA (Original content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Articles republished from other sources are licensed by the original publisher/author.). However bigger and older (13 January 2012 16:10:02) versions are available on the web - http:// cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/cd/99/ja1_2.jpg and http://www.rifuture.org/girl-at-the-center-of-the-cranston-prayer-banner-case-targeted-by-cyber-bullies.html/religion_banner_2_1015 - suspect progressive-charlestown.blogspot.com may not have full permission for image.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kul ratna tuladhar statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 3D artwork in Nepal - No freedom of panorama in Nepal  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:19, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edde Club Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a logo for a sports club: Edde Club. Most likely not owned by uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:49, 9 June 2012 (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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eclampusvitus2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a low resolution banner/flag for the E Clampus Vitus group and copyright is most likely not owned by uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:53, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esozone2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a collage of many images with unknown individual sources and license. Most of the images are probably owned by the uploader but of a few of the better quality images possibly aren't. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:18, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ewrofision1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a logo for an event that includes a version of the Eurovision Song Contest logo. Copyright is probably not owned by uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:33, 9 June 2012 (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⚡ 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No reason to believe this image was created by the uploader. It has been available elsewhere (http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/manzanar/aboutsato.htm or http://asianimprov.at.webry.info/200602/article_8.html) with a clear copyright hint: "Use of material for all other purposes is strictly prohibited without permission which should be obtained in writing from the author and editor of the site or the original source." The user uploaded unfree files before. Polarlys (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2012 (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.