The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:371chae yeon1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader's log contains many non-free images and this image looks very like a professional promo shot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to be from here. PhilKnight (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winamp5.541.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Screenshot of copyrighted, non-free software, but marked as public domain by uploader Don Cuan (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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.

No freedom of panorama for artworks, unfree derivative work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lego sea monster at downtown disney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative of the LEGO sculpture pictured. Powers ^T 02:23, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woodland Overhead Picture.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• File appears to be a satellite picture, uploader claims the picture is self-made. TNXMan 02:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The picture was taken by a friend of mine and I was given permission by him to use it.Kylebrennan1 (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly did they take that picture? TNXMan 02:48, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Las20 Concursantes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete I don't believe this image was created by the uploader or that he has the right to give a creative commons licence to this image. It looks like a slightly different version one of the wallpapers linked on this webpage with a different background. Even if he had access to the complete cast, as a professional photographer, the work was likely a "work for hire" to which he does not have any rights which are owned by the TV show. There is no evidence of permission to use this image. ww2censor (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be a professional photo that someone has uploaded and called public domain. ^Chillum 16:58, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanilla coke original logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Covers of products are often copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Creative works such as the label on a bottle or can are copyright by default. I find it unlikely that Coke has release this into an open license or the public domain. While some of the very old Coke logos have expired into the public domain, this is not true of the more modern design. Instead of repeating these arguments for each "coke bottle/can" entry here I will just say this comment here applies to them as well. ^Chillum 15:04, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modern coca cola bottle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Covers of products are often copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CokeM5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Covers of products are often copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coke with lime can.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Covers of products are often copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherry coke original logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Covers of products are often copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Covers of products are often copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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: Keep; the bottle was created before 1923. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1915 proto hiRes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Covers of products are often copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 1915 work is likely in the public domain, is it not? Powers ^T 15:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the age of this bottle makes it likely that its design is in the public domain. ^Chillum 16:55, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Premadasa stadiumnight.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No EXIF data, probably not the work of the uploader most of other cricket images uploaded by user have been copy vios MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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. Next time go through OTRS, though: see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Chick Bowen 05:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is a beautiful image that I really hate to lose, but I don't think the licensing here meets our requirements. I tried to discuss this image with the uploader (see User_talk:THWoodman#File:BuffaloSkyline.jpg) but received no response. The uploader does not claim to own the file but instead to have received permission from the photographer. The extent of that permission is not at all clear, and in any case ((PD-self)) obviously does not apply. OTRS permission of some sort is probably required here, but I don't even have the photographer's e-mail address to request it. Powers ^T 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, THWoodman here, I'm not sure if I'm doing this properly, as I'm an idiot when it comes to Wikipedia. What exactly is it that needs to be done to assure you all that the photographer behind the taking of this photograph indeed gave me permission for express use on Wikipedia? Thank you. THWoodman (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now have permission from the photographer and copyright holder to release it under public domain:

Tom W wrote:

Dear Mr. Zimmermann, I appreciate you giving me permission to use your photo for the Buffalo Wikipedia article. However, in order to keep it on that article, Wikipedia has a policy that not only must I have your permission, but I must have your permission that it be put under a "free license". So, do I have your permission to release your photo under a free license? Without your permission the image will be deleted. Thank you very much for your time. -Tom Woodman

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:33 AM, <szimmermann@***.rr.com <mailto:szimmermann@***.rr.com>> wrote:

Dear Mr Woodman,

Thank you for the interest in my photo of the Buffalo skyline and for asking of my permission for use in Wikipedia. You have my permission for freely using the photo for that purpose. Thank you again.

Stephen Zimmermann

Dear Mr. Woodman, Thank you again for checking with me. Yes, you can release my photo under a free license. Yours, Stephen Zimmermann

I really hope this clears up any issues regarding the Buffalo skyline photo. I censored out a portion of his e-mail address for his privacy. If there is any doubt about this not being legitimate I will release his e-mail address so you can check for yourself. If there's still an issue regarding this photo, please inform me! Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THWoodman (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot123.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image has been marked as possibly unfree for almost two years, but no discussion has been opened here yet. The image is almost completely based on non-free sprites and textures from The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, so the uploader can't release his rights on it – he doesn't have them. Don Cuan (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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. Signatures like this one are ineligible for copyright. — ξ^xplicit 05:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tim Kaine Signature.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Kaine. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a signature and falls under US jurisdiction, thus it should be ineligible for copyright. Don Cuan (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not unfree. It definitely falls under ((PD-ineligible)). WP:FFD is over thataway. Powers ^T 12:09, 7 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mats-Carnmarker - Grey-backed Camaroptera-meta.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Why is there a "copyright/all rights reserved" in the corner? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:15, 6 December 2009 (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 image 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⚡ 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afro-Trini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Composite image that includes what appear to be professional images which cannot be the copyright of any one single person, nor at the likely to be in the public domain. They include an iconic picture of Eric Williams, photographer apparently unknown (second from top), Janelle Commissiong at her Miss Universe win and Giselle Laronde at her Miss World win. Created by new editor who is new to Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2009 (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.