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⚡ 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amelle @ T4 Stars of 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User has a history of uploading images that they do not own. Previous similar images were deleted without contest, most recently [1]. Fixer23 (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, again, the low resolution and lack of metadata worries me, and the uploader has refused to provide high resolution images as "proof" they are the author. AnemoneProjectors 11:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it out of line to suggest batch deletion for all of their uploads (bar non-free images with rationales of course).Fixer23 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be easier. I listed them all on the user's talk page. AnemoneProjectors 02:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do if this deletion nomination goes through without contest.Fixer23 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:SitDownOnIt today removed the PUF template with the edit summary "That image, is mine! I took that myself! That is so Rude!!", I reverted this and asked them to comment here. AnemoneProjectors 12:33, 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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Devendranath-madhi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This appears to be a photograph of a poster of a painting. The "author" is listed as User:Aditya but it was uploaded by User:Adi33333 who is using a "self" license. The signature on the painting appears to read "W.T.Kansara". Because it is not an original work, only a photo of a poster of a painting I have to quesiton the source of "I created this work entirely by myself" and the author claims. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:19, 24 November 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⚡ 09:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tim Polecat.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused animated gif made from a video source. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:36, 24 November 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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HunterWali2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Promotional poster, copyright unlikely to belong to the uploader. — ξ^xplicit 06:03, 24 November 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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anjuman Pak actress (1).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a promotional image, uploader unlikely the copyright holder. — ξ^xplicit 06:03, 24 November 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⚡ 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAMBOTUBE 2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Screenshot of copyrighted material, unacceptable form of derivative work. — ξ^xplicit 06:06, 24 November 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 discussion was: Delete all. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Out of process deletion discussion closure. (x2 now - changed title to prevent out or process closure due to a bot) Should be listed for 14 days, this has only been listed for two. I have reopened it as it also appears File:8picture.jpg was deleted today which led MGA73 to close this under the impression the other 17 are also on Wikimadia Commons when they are not. Due to it's deletion I have stricken File:8picture.jpg to avoid more confusion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:File:8picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:9picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:7picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:6picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:3picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:1picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint9.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Paint10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs)

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

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

• File:8picture.jpg is clearly a scan from a newspaper and doubtful the uploader owns the copyright on the original source, which is not given in the image page but is given as "G.Madhurkar Chaturvedi" in the caption area where it, and the others, are being used in the Samikshavad article. Some of these were previously tagged with ((di-no source)) but declined because the admin felt/feels such "self" licensed images don't need one as it is clear the uploader is the author. (NOTE: Source is required per Image use policy - Requirements, step 2 - Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified.) None of these have sources, some are obviously scans, and some have even been cropped by another editor who said, in one of their summaries, "cropped out scanner bed, not sure if the GNU license is applicable." It is also important to note most of these are used in Samikshavad and, while they are are all claimed via a "self" license and list no source, in the article they contain attribution for different people and sources. "Ram Chandra Shukla", "K.D. Pande" and "R.S.Dheer" for example. It is fairly clear the uploader is not the true author of these. Also this version of File:Ram chandra shukla.jpg should go for the same reason(s). Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all unless some strong indication is offered that the uploader has acquired copyright. That's pretty unlikely. "Self" licenses are easy to assert and have been erroneously applied to all manner of copyright violations by contributors who either don't really understand our requirements or just aren't interested in complying. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 24 November 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 discussion was: Delete: Deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Grainy aerial photos; low res. Taken in three different locations across the United States. I just deleted a scan of the Seaworld map that had "Dolphin's Cove" circled as a copyvio. (File:Dolphinc.jpg) The contributor had labeled it "scanned picture of the seaworld map, marked the dolphin cove attraction" and yet still listed it "Source: Me " and ((self|cc-by-sa-3.0)). His understanding of what it means to be the source of an image is obviously problematic. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: In looking over the users uploads it is clear there is some confusion going on with their understanding of licensing/copyright as well as a lack of understanding the requirements of the Image use policy. Most were upped without any information and when they were tagged with ((di-no source)) the uploader added the "source" and left snarky comments in their summaries (see this dif for one example) followed by another edit to remove the ((di-no source)) tag and state the "nonsense" had been removed. (Similar actions on their talk page when the no source notices were given - see dif.) It also seems the user was only active for a few months in 2008, although an unanswered question made as they were leaving the project suggested they may have had/have another account. (see dif) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 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⚡ 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Same contributor as the last three, similar concerns. While this is not aerial, it is low res and it lacks metadata. Contrast this with File:UWVarea.JPG, which the contributor probably did take. This image is taken in Ohio, yet a fourth Sea World location. This looks like it could have been taken from a brochure. Given confusion with the map, I am concerned that this photograph is not by the uploader, who is presumably confused .Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In looking over the uses uploads it is clear they are just tagging any sort of license on the images that is "free" and seems to fit. This file was first uploaded with no information (i.e - no summary, no description, no license) at all. It was later "licensed" by the uploader as ((PD-retouched-user)). When it was tagged with ((di-no source)) the uploader removed the tag and added a summary that first said "see lic" and than added "Source: ME! GEEZ!!!!" and that lead to the most telling change (see dif) where they changed the license to ((cc-by-sa-3.0)) because the "other one was more or less bull..." It is obvious there is some confusion going on in regards to the license, but less obvious of what the real source of this, and the other, images really is. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:14, 24 November 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⚡ 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naharsinghji temple.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• • Another image from the same source by the same uplaoder: File:Panihaarin.jpg

• Delete: Uploader claims to be the author and source but the identical image in a smaller resolution also with the watermark, is found linked here, a copyright website, so it appears the licence is false, unless the uploader can prove the image was actually taken by him. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 24 November 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 discussion was: delete. It would seem most prudent to err on the side of caution aside from concrete evidence one way or the other. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I confirmed through Mallard Sheets' executor (his son) that the copyright on "The Word of Life" was expired. He can be reached through the contact page at the Millard Sheets Art Resource Website. I restored the image. -Nv8200p talk 15:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Touchdown Jesus was installed in 1964, which means that if it doesn't have a copyright notice, it is now in the public domain. But if it does have a copyright notice, it is copyrighted and this photograph is a derivative work. Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 23#File:Touchdown Jesus 2.jpg for the precipitating discussion. Powers ^T 18:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - how do you know it has a copyright notice? Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:14, 9 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⚡ 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PeleChalaca.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Crop shows the copyrighted? image as main subject. As such the image is a copyright violation. feydey (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as a copyvio for sure. The parent image should be clearly tagged with the Wikipedia Commons version of ((derivative)). While the parent image fits into the De minimis concept, this derivative most defiantly does not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't quite understand what the problem with the crop is. Under the CCA 2.0 Generic it states that anyone can "Remix - Adapt the Work" as long as the original author is attributed. How is the image "copyrighted" if the other image is not? Please explain.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Did you read the De minimis article? If not please do so. An oversimplified explanation is this: Say you take a photograph of your living room. In your living room there is a television that is turned on and a copyrighted television program is viewable on the screen. You upload the photo under a CCL. No problem as long as the overall image, which now contains a copyrighted image viable on a television, meets De minimis. However if somebody now takes your free image, crops out everything *but* the television, and the image on the screen, and uploads that under the same free license it is not valid - it is now a copyvio. Because it is not an image of your living room anymore, it is, in essence, a frame grab of a copyrighted TV show. In the case of this image your derivative version of an image showing uniforms on display in front of a copyrighted image, cropped to show only the copyrighted image, becomes a copyvio when claimed as free. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, but it is not easy to understand. Your "oversimplified" version is better by going straight to the point. Either way, thank you for your explanation. The image should then be deleted.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:02, 25 November 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.