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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not a screenshot from the music video released by Disney Channel for the song as the user has stated. The image is from the same concert where footage was taken for the music video, but this image was taken by a professional Disney photographer during the actual concert and the image was posted on Disney Channel's press website, Disneychannelmedianet.com to be used for press purposes. Here is a link to the caption box for the image on their website:[1]. Rockin56 (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep image, move down to "Promotion" section (which is really what the image illustrates and identifies), and ask the uploader to replace licensing with ((Non-free promotional)) and to update info with the disneychannelmedianet.com information. Liquidluck (talk) 02:15, 21 September 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⚡ 04:38, 1 October 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not a screenshot from the music video for the song as the user stated, it's a professional for-press photograph taken by a Disney photographer during the concert where footage was used for the music video, but this is not an actual screenshot from the music video that was released. Here is the caption box from Disney Channel's press website Disneychannelmedianet.com that depicts the photo:[2] Rockin56 (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No need to delete, because it provides significant information to Ice Cream Freeze (Let's Chill)- the uploader should simply replace the licensing with ((Non-free promotional)) Liquidluck (talk) 02:07, 21 September 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⚡ 04:38, 1 October 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image above is not a screenshot from the music video for the song "It's All Right Here" as the user stated, it's a professional for-press photograph taken by a Disney photographer during the concert where footage was used for the music video, but this is not an actual screenshot from the music video that was released. Here is the caption box from Disney Channel's press website Disneychannelmedianet.com that depicts the photo:[3] Rockin56 (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with deletion. The image is only used in the article It's All Right Here, and that article is about a single which did not appear on a notable chart (bubbling under the Hot 100 isn't notable, right?) If the article is deleted, the image will be orphaned. Liquidluck (talk) 02:09, 21 September 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⚡ 04:38, 1 October 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious: We get a lot of people who claim professional looking photos of sports figures are theirs with an own-photo tag, but they often end up being taken from sports news sites. The access required and quality of this photo looks like a professional journalist. Not sure how to go about finding more info, but I think this should be examined and more background on the submitter should be provided. Bobak (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless uploader has some explanation for what s/he is doing with a press-quality camera on the field during an NFL game. This photo couldn't have come from the stands, and copyright almost assuredly rests with the press agency who actually took it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:53, 17 September 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Florida police badge is very unlikely to be a work of the US Federal government. Also no source. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 17 September 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a screen-shot from a copyrighted film, with no mention of copyright. Vikrant42 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possibly a screen-shot from a copyrighted film, with no mention of copyright. Vikrant42 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crown copyright, not the uploader's to release Stifle (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are quite right, it is is not in the public domain. It is under Crown Copyright, see Commons:Currency#United_Kingdom. Re-tag with fair-use rationale for British twenty-five pence coin. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:13, 25 September 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this user's previous uploads it is questionable whether he has the right to upload it as PD. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 17 September 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 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: Keep Skier Dude (talk) Dated July 1956, and per the template on the page, photographs taken after 1st January 1955 in Australia are still copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as per the copyright template on the file you will see that criterion E states "Commonwealth or State government held photographs: first published more than 50 years ago" now have expired copyright. This file comes under this category, as it is/was owned and held by an Australian Government body, taken on the directive of an Australian Government employee and was taken 53 years ago. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept, per Abraham, B.S.'s rationale. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image should be kept, as per Bryce and Ian's rationales. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that the image is Commomwealth or State government held, please. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per this page, all photographs in the collection of the Australian War Memorial, such as this one, are owned/held by the Memorial, which is a Government body. The page states:

"The Australian Copyright Act defines a variety of materials with different copyright protection. Those that pertain directly to the Australian War Memorial's Public Access Databases are as follows:

[...]

3. 50 years from making

• Photographs taken before 1 May 1969"

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this can be kept. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 28 September 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 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: Kept with File:LottoFINedit.jpg put in the spot w/credit to Janke. I didn't delete the original upload, but it's not showing up as a thumbnail (but it is still showing in the upload history - can someone say glitch? :) Skier Dude (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims rights to this lottery receipt by scanning it. I'd think the text/image together probably constitute enough originality that the original publisher (such as it is) would retain the copyright, and this couldn't be free. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A computer printout, consisting of a limited amount of letters and numbers output with ordinary dot-matrix characters, copyrightable? I don't think so... The very faint logo printing of the background in the original file, the only thing I consider copyrightable, can be removed - I tried to upload such a version over the old, but there's some glitch with Commons, upload over the old one does not function. Can an admin please replace the original with an uploaded replacement: "LottoFINedit.jpg", thanks --Janke | Talk 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that's copyrightable. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 18 September 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 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 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⚡ 04:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of a newspaper, date not given. If the newspaper isn't out of copyright (and the color photo leads me to believe it probably isn't), then the image is non-free. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The photo came from the Alliance Times Herald on June 25, 1981 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandhiller (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 September 2009

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.