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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There is no indication that the subject of the photo, the mascot, is outside the scope of copyright or acceptably licensed. If the mascot is copyrighted and not creative commons licensed, then the image of the mascot cannot be be creative commons licensed. Monty₈₄₅ 03:10, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abuelita Package and Product.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No indication that the box art is out of copyright, may be eligible as a fair use non-free image, but it is currently licensed as creative commons. Monty₈₄₅ 03:19, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arizona USAD medals.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No indication the underlying medals are acceptably licensed or outside the scope of copyright, without which, the photo of the medals is not properly licensed. Monty₈₄₅ 03:31, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob-the-sponge-paris.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This photo would not fall within freedom of Panorama in France, where it was taken, and thus photo itself cannot be licensed under the creative commons. (there is no evidence the advertisement is acceptably licensed itself) Monty₈₄₅ 03:38, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bombora Bottle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image indicates it was provided for promotional use by the manufacturer, there is no evidence the uploader had authority to license it under the creative commons, but it may be eligible under fair use as a non-free image. Monty₈₄₅ 03:44, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bombora Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image indicates it was provided for promotional use by the manufacturer, there is no evidence the uploader had authority to license it under the creative commons, but it may be eligible under fair use as a non-free image. I'm not sure if the image portion of the logo is sufficient to qualify the image for copyright, but in the case that it is not, the image should be licensed as PD, creative commons is an incorrect license either way. Monty₈₄₅ 03:48, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cooranbong Bottle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image description indicates it was provided for promotional use by the manufacturer, there is no evidence the uploader had authority to license it under the creative commons, but it may be eligible under fair use as a non-free image. Monty₈₄₅ 03:53, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CRW 8967 RT16kohala.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No licensing information is provided for the art that is captured in the photo, thus the photo is not properly creative commons licensed. Monty₈₄₅ 03:55, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:FoothillOwlMascot fxIMG 1309wb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No licensing information is provided for the sculpture that is the subject of the photo, the sculpture is likely under copyright, and if so, the photo cannot be licensed as creative commons. Monty₈₄₅ 04:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no info on where or when it was created or by whom, and after a brief web search am disinclined to continue trying to find that info. Elf | Talk 22:52, 24 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goofyft6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no indication that the image of goofy that features prominently in the photo is acceptably licensed. Monty₈₄₅ 04:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - orhaned, unencyclopedic, non-free. Kelly ^hi! 14:50, 13 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There is no indication that the sculpture, which is the subject of the photo, is acceptably licensed. Without licensing for the sculpture, the photo cannot be creative commons licensed. Monty₈₄₅ 04:09, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ingalls 011.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the given source is the copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 04:57, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Treblinka 1945.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Large (totally in your face) watermark originating from a non-Polish host indicates that the image is (or might be) copyright protected by ARC. The required link to source is missing. There's no indication that the photograph has been taken by a Polish photographer and/or published for the first time in Poland either. The claim of public domain based on Polish copyright law therefore could be just wishful thinking. Lewinowicz (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• PD-art is claimed, but the source page doesn't specify how old the image is: its subject has been dead for over 160 years, but as it's a painting, it could easily have been produced more than 160 years after his death. ((npd)) isn't appropriate because a copyright holder's agreement is not necessary for that template, since old works can pass into the public domain even if the holder objects. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The style of painting is Nirmal so definetely before 20th century. This is a slavish and faithful reproduction of an original work. Definetely older than 70 years.It also qualifies as PD-India. Pls have a look at the file page. I have given explanation there.Foodie 377 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any confirmed example of a 19th-century painting displaying a comparable style? I admit I know little or nothing about Indian art (but quite a bit about European art), but your keyword "Nirmal" doesn't help me any further either (this painting most definitely looks nothing even remotely comparable to anything I see in a Google search on "Nirmal painting", so what are you referring to?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a style of painting from about 17th century to 19th century. For example look at this painting of Shivaji who lived in 17th century. - http://www.freshersline.com/wp-content/uploads/enthroned1.jpg . Foodie 377 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry for being picky (or dense), but could you also point to a reliable source stating that that example is as old as the 19th century? I'm not seeing any information about that image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have that info. So What is the best way to accommodate this image? as I am new to this and I really do not know under what license this would qualify.Foodie 377 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the right question to ask is not "what is the best way?" but "is there a way?" The criterion is quite clear: either you find solid evidence that it's old enough under PD-India, or it goes out; there really is no other alternative that I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely It can come under the bracket of non-free fair use rationale as it is not replaceable. No was is this replaceable as the subject is dead for over 150 years!. Foodie 377 (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be replaceable. If this is not an authentic contemporary portrait but only a later artist's creative imagination, then anybody else's creative imagination would be just as valid as his, so in fact you or I could create a replacement "portrait". Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 15 August 2011 (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.