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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:5t Dunavska pri Karagach dere.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 20th-century painting; artist lived until 1979. Claimed PD-1923, but could not find any evidence about year of creation/publication. Artist known to have been active both before and after 1923 (see list of other works bg:Димитър Гюдженов) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish interwiki link added. Not sure if the image should be reported as possibly unfree on Turkish Wikipedia or how do to this. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exide Band Photoshoot January 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I proposed this for F9 deletion yesterday because the image also appears at this page, but it was declined since the image at that page used a smaller resolution. However, it still seems to be a copyvio. Just take a look at yesterday's PUF discussions where two different copies of the same image are listed. In those discussions, the uploader claimed own work but listed the wrong camera model (not matching with the EXIF metadata). This time, the uploader has updated the camera model information, but has obviously not understood what the EXIF metadata means, and it seems that the uploader is trying to falsify copyright information by changing his opinion about the camera model. Stefan2 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lincoln3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low resolution, lack of metadata, and limited upload history point toward this not being the work of the uploader. Kelly ^hi! 14:36, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jing Ulrich in '06.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unfree photo? Same uploader but different camera model compared to the photo below. See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 25#File:Jing Ulrich in 2010.JPG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jing Ulrich in Aug 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unfree photo? Same uploader but different camera model compared to the photo above. See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 25#File:Jing Ulrich in 2010.JPG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jing Ulrich in 2008.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unfree photos? Same uploader as the photos above. Overwritten this time so there are two photos. The current one has no EXIF, haven't checked the old image. See also Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 25#File:Jing Ulrich in 2010.JPG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pineview Dam.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify original source/license. Kelly ^hi! 15:15, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:EOS2007 0617 020ii.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo taken three days before Wikipedia upload according to EXIF so might not be a problem, but the user's talk page contains a few notices about copyright concerns, so I'm not sure. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Recent grave in the United States with a photo/illustration on it. Not sure if the photo/illustration can be claimed to be de minimis. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the photo in question. I'm not sure what the deal is. How can I prove it? BPinard 15:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPinard (talk • contribs)
    • The concern is that the photo is a derivative work of another copyrighted work (the photo on the gravestone). Kelly ^hi! 15:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a copyright notice on the grave, and I highly doubt there has been a copyright claim against this photo. It is fair use to take a photo of something that is available for view in public. Why not remove all of the photos from the page on gravestone? Most of the photos are of old pieces and I doubt the creators of them were asked permission. [[ BPinard 15:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The person in the grave died after 1989, and at that time copyright notices no longer affected whether a work would be copyrighted or not. Generally speaking, gravestones erected since 1978 are copyrighted regardless of any copyright notices. For information, see Commons:COM:FOP#United States. Ancient gravestones are fine and gravestones outside the United States may be fine regardless of age, depending on the country. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:56, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erté (Russian, 1892-1990), Two Serigraphs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Proper attribution not provided. File appears to have been professionally generated by auction house according to comments. Uploader may have rights and may be able to grant them, but has not provided details.  Frank  |  talk  15:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we have a professional photographer in-house. What is the best way to handle this issue? We have thousands of professional photographs I am adding to wikipedia, and need to make sure I am doing it right. Thanks! --Joe.waddell (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The very first thing to do is to stop uploading images as I requested on your talk page. "Upon request" is not an acceptable licensing rationale for uploading images without proper attribution.  Frank  |  talk  18:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:CONSENT and make sure that the copyright holder of the painting (normally the painter or his heirs, usually not the owner of the painting if exhibited at an art gallery or museum) sends an e-mail to the address specified where the copyright holder of the paiting agrees to license the photo under the specified licence. If the painting shows a 3D frame, the photo gets its own copyright, so it is necessary to send a permission e-mail from the copyright holder of the photo (normally the photographer's employer if it is a work for hire) in addition to the permission e-mail from the painter. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Yes, we need an administrator to delete this picture.--Joe.waddell (talk) 14:44, 12 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sense screenshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• software screenshot, no information about software's licensing status Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and accompanying documentation and media files (the "Software") to distribute the Software for non-commercial purposes, including the right to use, copy, publish, or distribute copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:" This does not seem to include commercial use and it is not clear if derivative works are allowed either. Seems to be closed source. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 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 as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sketches-of-Rawabi-001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The Guardian claims that this is in the public domain but does not explain why this is the case. Appears everywhere on the Internet but unfortunately it only seems to be on web sites using languages I can't read. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested deletion of the file. --Pevos (talk) 19:04, 9 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ml20080823.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uniqema-opendag-20061007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 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.