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⚡ 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asmundur Sveinson Sonartorrek.jpg. Also, I notice the uploader never added a license; was it common back in 2004 to just do so for them [1]? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:03, 30 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: keep as long as Resolute or another user acts within seven days (i.e. by 12/29/2010) to rectify the licensing as discussed. Otherwise, this close will change to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After writing this, I just fixed it myself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 1933-34 work with unidentified authorship , I don't see how this can be claimed as CC-BY-SA Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as the photos are pre-1949, they are PD in Canada. The CC-BY-SA likely only came about from me taking a default option when I uploaded the picture back in the day. Can easily re-label/re-license that if there are no other objections. Resolute 17:41, 30 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Au revoir.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Reffral to PUI over logo inclusion... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are literally thousands of images that include logos in such a fashion from images of athletes alone. Resolute 17:44, 30 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⚡ 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mug1173.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious claim that it was released by the college hof, which is backe dup by a dead link. AaronY (talk) 19:41, 30 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: change to non-free. Interested users will need to add a fair use rationale for this image, as it will need one in short order. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Donat.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 39 Steps copyright renewed in 1994 when Pres. Clinton signed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and it is not in public domain as user states. See this link for more info. Copana2002 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Change the copyright and add a FUR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 30#File:Robert Donat.gif --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a good summary of the copyright status of this film here. Does fair use apply if the file is only used on the actor's biography? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:33, 2 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⚡ 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Your-Song-Single.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a Cover. It is unused by the way. MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 30 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⚡ 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think this is a Derivative work because this does not look ineligible for copyright. So the creator of the cover has the rights to the work. MGA73 (talk) 21:25, 30 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⚡ 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:McVicker Painting1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• A picture of a painting is a derivative work and we need the permission from the painter. From the information on the file page I can not see that we have one. Same problem with File:McVicker Painting2.JPG, File:McVicker Painting3.JPG and File:McVicker Painting4.JPG. MGA73 (talk) 21:48, 30 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.