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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many uploads by the user from this time frame have been deleted as copyvios. This one is particularly questionable. Wknight94 ^talk 04:28, 30 May 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many uploads by the user from this time frame have been deleted as copyvios. This one is particularly questionable. Wknight94 ^talk 04:37, 30 May 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of http://animals.howstuffworks.com/arachnids/chigger3.htm (unless the author is the same as the one on the other site) Shyamal (talk) 05:54, 30 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here as CC-by-3.0 but on the linked flickr page it states "all rights reserved" - unless the flickr licence has changed very recently this is not a free image Peripitus (Talk) 08:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr doesn't have CC-by-3.0 as an option, so clearly an erroneous license. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 30 May 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: Not deleted, already tagged as non-free

This image is replaceable therefore copyrighted images can't be uploaded here as fair-use. Bidgee (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're really after FFD here, since we already know the image is unfree. Nonetheless, as the original tagger, I agree that it should be deleted as replaceable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an image from the 1970s of a film is replaceable I really worry. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to understand how can anyone argue that a still from a 70s film is replaceable? The concerned image is relevant to the text of the article and no other free image can be found of equal relevance. Therefore, strong keep. --Nosedown (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:32, 1 June 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: tagged as non-free

This image is replaceable therefore copyrighted images can't be uploaded here as fair-use. Bidgee (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Wrong process if you care about that sort of thing, but delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. so maybe you two are suggesting us to go back in time to the sets of the Anand film and take a snap of Amitabh in action. Please go through the policy before stating your opinions here. Strong keep. --Nosedown (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:32, 1 June 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: Resolved

This is a 1922 painting by André Masson. It is currently tagged ((PD-art-US)), though several editors considered it to be used under fair use. It would be in the public domain in the United States if it were originally published in the United States before 1923, but it seems likely that this painting was originally "published" in France. Masson died in 1987, so it certainly hasn't passed into the public domain due to the "life plus 70 years" rule. So it's not clear why this painting is in the public domain in the United States as claimed. —Bkell (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Masson is an important example of early surrealist painting and should not be lost...If necessary it should be used under Fair Use, provided it wasn't published (or shown) in the USA before 1923...Modernist (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change to FU During a dispute a while ago in which a lot of FU art images were being put up for deletion and/or shrunk to nearly unviewable sizes I went around and retagged many of them that were dated before 1923 as PDUS. Because it is difficult to prove whether or not they were exhibited or reproduced here before the deadline, I went by a sort of reasonable doubt, which I'll admit is far from scholarly. I won't retread that debate now, because I haven't the time to waste and don't care so much as I once did. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((pd-1923-abroad))? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know that existed. Then why was this entire discussion even necessary?? Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to ((pd-1923-abroad)) per Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago [1] Modernist (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the paintings provenance from the Tate the Masson painting was acquired by them from the Kahnweiler family - and was likely exhibited (published) at Kahnweiler's gallery prior to 1923...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) as discussed above. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, whaddya know. ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) is new to me, too. I had been under the impression that the 1923 cutoff date was valid only for works produced in the United States. Assuming that ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) is telling the truth, then obviously we've found a solution. Thanks, ViperSnake. —Bkell (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags, as this is resolved....Modernist (talk) 02:25, 1 June 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See TinEye results: [2] In particular, the version at [3] is higher resolution, which proves it wasn't taken from Wikipedia but acquired from another source. Powers ^T 22:58, 30 May 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is explicitly (via a built-in caption) sourced to the Rochester City Hall Photo Lab. The Photo Lab's copyright information says "The contributors to the Rochester Images database provide these images for non-commercial, personal, educational, or research use only." Those restrictions would prohibit it from being used on Wikipedia. This is one of several images that User:Daniel Christensen has uploaded from RocWiki, which supposedly licenses all content as CC-by-SA. However, they appear to do no source-checking on uploaded images whatsoever, and so it is my position that claims of CC-by-SA licensing on images from RocWiki cannot be trusted, period. This could affect any image uploaded here sourced to RocWiki. Previous, more clear-cut, example at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 10#File:Lincoln First Bank.jpg. Powers ^T 23:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: previously addressed this with the user at User talk:Daniel Christensen#File:Kodaktower.jpg. Powers ^T 23:18, 30 May 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.