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 discussion was: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biofilter.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as I can tell from the history of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, OTRS confirmation wasn't required at the time of this upload (see current revision at the time when the image was uploaded), and we grandfather images that were acceptable when uploaded. Before we began requiring OTRS, we trusted uploaders when they claimed GFDL permission for images; the uploader obviously claims GFDL permission, so this wouldn't have been deleted at the time. If you say "GFDL, and you can use it on Wikipedia", that's like a dual-license; we permit an image with cc-by-sa and cc-by-nc, and likewise we permit something with Wikipedia-only if it also has a free license. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the wording suggests that the only permission granted was a Wikipedia-only permission and that the user was confused and thought that the ((GFDL)) tag provides this information. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it suggests it, but it's not conclusive. In the absence of proof of a bad permissions status, this would have been accepted at the time. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The more confusing statement an uploader makes, the more likely it is that the uploader has got something wrong. In this cases, the uploader seems to make two contradicting statements ("it may be used under GFDL" and "it may only be used on Wikipedia"). In this case, we would have to assume that the uploader has misunderstood something. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it said "it may only be used on Wikipedia" then I agree that would be a problem but it doesn't say that and, so far as I can see, it never has done. It says "Wikipedia use courtesy McGill Environmental Systems of N.C., Inc." and that is not at all incompatible with a free licence. Thincat (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To say it is GFDL and as well as that say it can be used on Wikipedia seem entirely compatible to me. Likewise that the licence is courtesy of someone. I don't see any implication that GFDL was mistaken. To have said it is GFDL but that it can't be used on Wikipedia would suggest to me some mistake. Thincat (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2014 (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 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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murals (Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Barabanki).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Murals are 2D works, and so an FoP concern arises, country of origin, India. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2014 (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 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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It is unclear whether the words "He approves the use of his photos here" allows anyone to use the file under a free licence or whether it only allows the uploader to upload the picture to Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Today, we'd require OTRS evidence of the GFDL template, but something this old is grandfathered in, as it was acceptable at the time. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the user has quoted the permission statement "He approves the use of his photos here" on the file information page, which sounds like a Wikipedia-only permission. Wikipedia-only permissions are not accepted, regardless of when the file was uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • See longer comment above on biofilter.jpg, which I was writing when you left this note; my comments there are relevant here too. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't think we have adequate evidence of permission for this image. The original uploader said the pic was used in a television ad, and the photo appeared here in March 2005, preceding its upload here by eight months. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The person who edited the image page to indicate that there is permission [1] was not the original uploader, but, rather, an administrator - @Jengod:. Has anyone asked her to comment here? She may personally know the flickr user or be able to comment on the license that that person agreed to. --B (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, this is his email to me from 2006, BUT I agree that it should be deleted because of general rights problems. Very replaceable image. jengod (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Brown ira.brown [at gmail dot com] via bounce.secureserver.net 12/6/06

to mail You've been sent a Flickr Mail from BinaryLA:

---

Wikipedia photos

Hi jennifer

I upload the 49er picture to wikipedia and received credit. i did not upload the dingbat photo and it is mine but i did not receive credit. however, i would like the photo to remind and receive credit. I would like to upload more photos but have not had in luck figuring out the process.

ira

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 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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Missing evidence that this photo, presumably first published in the United Kingdom, was first published in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The copyright issue was extensively discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 23, which ultimately resulted in a keep. This image was previously tagged with ((PD-EU-no author disclosure)), but the template was removed while the image was at IFD, since apparently they found the photographer's name. No opinion on how I would have voted at the IFD or how to vote here; I'm just trying to provide history. Please consider converting to a fair-use rationale if closing this PUF as nonfree. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion mentions renewals, but a renewal is unneeded for pictures first published in the United Kingdom. According to the discussion on Commons, c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chadwick.jpg, the photographer appears to have been British, and photographs by British photographers are usually not first published in the United States. Unless it can be shown that the photograph was first published in the United States, all stuff about renewals in the previous discussion can be rejected as irrelevant to the copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it at least plausible it is a UK work and still in UK copyright. If so, do we go along with URAA restoration of US copyright? I'm not sure but I think we do. Fair use as meant here would only be available under unusual circumstances because Commons has this which does't seem to be being squabbled over. Also the image under discussion isn't in use. However, in law, any use here would almost certainly be accepted as fair. Thincat (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2014 (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.