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: speedy delete as F8. Editors are encouraged to participate in the deletion discussion on Commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stones members.JPG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stones members.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source iage of Chrlie Watts is missing, a file with this name was deleted at Commons as a copyvio. Unless a valid source or replacement is found this compilation has to be deleed. Denniss (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the up-loader - the image was made for (what i believed was 4 fair use images), However if Charles pick was deleted for copy right vio, it would apply here to. Guess i will just have to make a new one. PS this also applies to File:The Rolling stones mebers 2...JPGMoxy (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (crosslinking to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stones members.JPG, where I asked for the source of the Charlie Watts photograph) -84user (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:N8 Camera.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is from a PDF posted at the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, which is the work of Nokia, not the federal government, so the PD-USGov license is invalid, and the PDF clearly says "All rights reserved". Mosmof (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, another file from the same PDF is up for deletion on Commons. --Mosmof (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PDF file is on a PD website, thus, Nokia released it into the PD. It is no different to taking a Nokia image from Flickr, which someone had taken with their camera. The image is PD. Editor182 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allowing viewing is not the same thing as releasing. The ((PD-USGov)) license is for works that originate from the federal government, not content created by 3rd parties and viewable on a government website. And yes, it is different from taking a Nokia image from Flickr because those images (some of those, anyway) are licensed freely. An image has to be explicitly released into the public domain - simply having a spec sheet hosted on a government website doesn't make the copyright magically disappear. --Mosmof (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My point to reason: The image is hosted on a public domain, not a private domain, thus intellectual property rights are inapplicable. If it were not intended for public release, it would not have been published by the FCC post-receiving the file from Nokia. Editor182 (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Writing something in bold letters does not make it true. --Mosmof (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Opening multiple discussions for the same or derivative files does not make your request for deletion any stronger.

- It only complicates the consensus. You've lodged multiple requests on two of my images thus far. One discussion is enough.

- The consensus for this image and the derivative is going to take place on Commons. Editor182 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a lot less complicated if you would stop uploading identical images on different projects as soon as their copyright status is challenged. As for this one, you can find the answer by simply looking at the third paragraph of Copyright status of work by the U.S. government: In addition, many publications of the U.S. government contain protectable works authored by others (e.g., patent applications, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, public comments on regulations, etc.), and this rule does not necessarily apply to the creative content of those works. In this case, Nokia was required to submit technical specifications on its smartphone to the FCC, just as one would be required for patent and trademark applications. This does not constitute a transfer of copyright. If you still insist on maintaining your position, please cite the relevant laws or cases that support your position. --Mosmof (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drazen ladic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Doubtful own work. The image looked professional so I put it through TinEye which found 1 hit. The image seems to have been taken from the news website Index.hr and is credited to the Cropix photo agency. Timbouctou 12:13, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Admrboltz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fatos Beciraj NK Dinamo Zagreb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Doubtful own work. The image looks professional and seems to be a cropped version of this image which was published on a fan blog (it's likely that it was taken from some professional news website but a TinEye search doesn't yield any results.) Timbouctou 12:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it originally came from this website which credits it to one Damir Krajač of Cropix. Timbouctou 12:48, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leandro Cufre Dinamo.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Doubtful own work. The image seems to be taken from this webste which credites one Ronald Goršić of the Cropix photo agency. Timbouctou 12:33, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Admrboltz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mateo Kovacic training.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Doubtful own work. TinEye search yields 3 results, including this news item which credits the image to one Antonio Bronić of the Pixsell news agency. Timbouctou 12:39, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Admrboltz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marin Skender in Dinamo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Doubtful own work. The image was taken from NK Dinamo Zagreb official website, which is copyrighted in its entirety. Timbouctou 12:44, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Admrboltz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jakub sylvestr.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Doubtful own work. Seems to be taken from this website, credited to one Davor Javorović of Pixsell. Timbouctou 12:51, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Admrboltz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Doubtful own work. Most likely taken from HNK Hajduk Split official website. Timbouctou 12:54, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muneer Badini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• dubious self-made image (promotional photo of politician) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:P8250008.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Credit is given to Alshawn Rushing, but we don't know if that's the same person as the uploader. Account was used only to upload this picture and add it to an article. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:00, 3 December 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tito in Vladimir Dedijer in 1952.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Only has ((PD-Yugoslavia))} applied, the tag states the following:

"This template must not be used on its own. To establish PD status it must be used only with an appropriate license template such as ((PD-CroatiaGov)). You must make sure the file content has been declared as public domain by the laws of the relevant successor state." Acather96 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2010 (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.