The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Missing evidence of permission. If you are the copyright holder, please follow this procedure to get the file restored -FASTILY 03:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology cover image.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by McrPhilosophy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not public domain as tagged, linked licensing statement: https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/licensing-statement/ says "The logos and photographs must not be adapted in any way" which is incompatible. Question therefore - is it above the very low c:COM:TOO for the UK, and I think it probably is. PD-US only perhaps? There's already a non-free logo in the article, British Society for Phenomenology, and I don't think this would qualify as another non-free, since the reader wouldn't "lose any understanding of the topic" in its absence. Begoon 00:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--McrPhilosophy (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Hi there - thanks for looking at this and letting me know the issues. I have contacted the society in question and let them know of the issue. They have removed the sentence in question from their licensing page. Would this be OK now? McrPhilosophy 12:48, 30 October 2019[reply]

McrPhilosophy, No, I don't think so - there's still a restriction - "for use by anyone wishing to promote or discuss the society, as long as they do not bring the society into disrepute". See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details on procedures and acceptable licenses. Donating the image under a free license means that anyone, anywhere, will be able to use or modify the image for whatever purpose, even commercial, they choose, even if those uses might be ones of which the copyright holder would not approve, and there would be no legal recourse in that event. You can't restrict usage of the donated image to wikipedia, or to non-commercial use, forbid modifications, or restrict in other ways, since that would not result in a compatible free license for us to use.

Imagine that our article were to contain valid criticism of the Society, well sourced and accurate, but which the Society did not "like" or felt "brought it into disrepute". That's not something we could agree to omit because of an image - and that's just one example of why a restriction like that wouldn't be acceptable - anyone, anywhere, needs to also be free to re-use the image for whatever purpose they wish for it to be free. That's one of wikipedia's main aims - to be a source of freely re-usable content to re-users anywhere. The licenses at the page I linked are really the only acceptable ones for free use.

Many people/organisations are unwilling to make such a donation, for those reasons.

As I mentioned above, for this image it might be possible to treat it as PD-US only, because it's basically a simple typographical design - but I'd like others to confirm that. It would also need to satisfy our WP:Image use policy wherever it was used, if that was the case - in other words images need to illustrate actual encyclopedic content and not be purely 'decorative', but it would probably be ok on that score, as used. -- Begoon 16:43, 30 October 2019 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Missing evidence of permission. If you are the copyright holder, please follow this procedure to get the file restored -FASTILY 03:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delegates at the British Society for Phenomenology 2019 conference.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by McrPhilosophy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not public domain as tagged, linked licensing statement: https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/licensing-statement/ says "The logos and photographs must not be adapted in any way" which is incompatible. Needs to be released by the copyright holder with a compatible, free license, or I fear we can't keep it. Begoon 00:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--McrPhilosophy (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Hi there - thanks for looking at this and letting me know the issues. I have contacted the society in question and let them know of the issue. They have removed the sentence in question from their licensing page. Would this be OK now? McrPhilosophy 12:48, 30 October 2019[reply]

McrPhilosophy, No, I don't think so - there's still a restriction - "for use by anyone wishing to promote or discuss the society, as long as they do not bring the society into disrepute". See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details on procedures and acceptable licenses. Donating the image under a free license means that anyone, anywhere, will be able to use or modify the image for whatever purpose, even commercial, they choose, even if those uses might be ones of which the copyright holder would not approve, and there would be no legal recourse in that event. You can't restrict usage of the donated image to wikipedia, or to non-commercial use, forbid modifications, or restrict in other ways, since that would not result in a compatible free license for us to use. Many people/organisations are unwilling to make such a donation, for those reasons. See also the rest of my comment above. -- Begoon 16:43, 30 October 2019 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rectangular tray depicting Miyajima Shrine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Crossfire~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Crossfire, when he uploaded this image, claimed to be the author of this OhMyNews article, but that article contains photographic reproductions of nine such works, all with ©2005 D.Weber printed beneath them. I see no reason to believe that Mr. Weber actually created all these works (he implies he saw them at a "temporary art exhibition" in Tokyo), which leads me to believe this is a misunderstanding of how media copyright works. We have no indication that the original, essentially 2D, works are free to use. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 30 October 2019 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:ManpreetKaurMrar.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Manpreet Kaur Mrar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused personal picture; Out of WP:SCOPE and commons:COM:SCOPE. CptViraj (📧) 05:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Self-request from uploader.[1] The above rationale from CptViraj is technically invalid, since if it weren't for the uploader requesting the file be deleted we could assume she intended to put it on her userpage (her username makes it seem she is the subject of the photo). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, If you have taken a look at the uploader's talk page then you may know that user has tried to make a autobiography. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:RealChinamap.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sinoevils~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It's essentially a duplicate of File:China map.png, but the uploader of the image in question does not attribute it to the original uploader (me) as the licencing requires. Furthermore, it's an orphaned image that was uploaded because they disagreed with the existing image; so rather than discuss, they uploaded the same image, minus a few points and dots. The reason that (1) I didn't delete it myself is due to the glaring conflict I have (being the creator of the original), (2) I didn't go through CSD is none of the categories apply (it ain't WP:CSD#F1 as the original file no longer exists locally, and not WP:F8 as it's not 100% identical, but it is, in essence, the same image).

(note: I haven't edited File:China map.png since 2007. Post 2007 revisions and edits have been mostly done by other editors) Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS).} 11:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to other PNG file. Salavat (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lawrence-Roger-Lumley-11th-Earl-of-Scarbrough.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AlbanGeller (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There's an image of him by an unknown photographer from 1937 at https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/11th-earl-of-scarborough-and-lord-chamberlain-sir-lawrence-news-photo/51612955?adppopup=true. That photograph should not have UK/EU copyright because it's from over 70 years ago. Fair use doesn't apply if there are free images available. DrKay (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiger girl.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Munkylord (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused. Modified version of a game screenshot, so presumably non-free. John of Reading (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Titanmatch.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Veins~enwiki (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused non-free screenshot John of Reading (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be speedy deleted under WP:F9. While the uploader claims to be the copyright holder, but it is, in fact, Electronic Arts or its subsidiary Dice that presumably hold the copyright, which is clearly indicated by the uploader themselves: "made myself i played battlefield 2142 and took a screenshot". —Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS).} 20:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2019 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ewen Henderson - Bird Pot, 1984.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tbdjames (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

likely derivative of non-free content (3d artwork, published 1984) FASTILY 20:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2019 (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.