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, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bozidar Puric left.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no date of creation of this photo, so it will be impossible to determine if it is public domain under Serbian laws. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  According to this, he presided the government between 1943 and 1944, and that is the most likely date of the photo: at that time, he was 52, which matches his outlooks from the photo. No such user (talk) 06:47, 17 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 discussion was: Keep.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lowthorpe School 1920s main house.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader is not the copyright holder and cannot release it into the public domain. Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. YLaM is correct. However I spoke with the uploader, who still has the brochure, and it was published in the 1920s without a © notice. As such it is in the public domain. I have corrected the license. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:18, 17 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 discussion was: Keep.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lowthorpe School 1920s brochure.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader is not the copyright holder and cannot release it into the public domain. Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. YLaM is correct. However I spoke with the uploader, who still has the brochure, and it was published in the 1920s without a © notice. As such it is in the public domain. I have corrected the license. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:18, 17 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, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryujo 1870.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader is not the copyright holder and cannot release it into the public domain. Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The uploader confirms that the painting was made by T J Culpan, but I can't find any information on when the artist died. This may well be PD, but I can't tell for sure, sadly. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:20, 17 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, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Falmerstadium-may2011.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I believe that this image, even though it is listed as public domain, was taken from the Falmer Stadium webcam and is therefore copyrighted. Images from the webcam on 31st May are exactly the same as this image. Kafuffle (talk) 11:28, 8 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 as F5 by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Uploading it continuously doesn't make it a valid single cover — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:08, 8 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 discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file has been marked with "((Non-free reduced|13:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)))".

• The first uploaded file (which I uploaded) was considerably reduced in resolution from the scanned original, so much so, that the manufacturer's catalog number (in the upper left of the image) was virtually unreadable. From this I had concluded that the lower resolution digital copy which I first uploaded could not be used for deliberate copyright infringement. I realize that the extent of reduction required to meet the non-free criteria is a judgment call on which editors can differ, but the bot-produced image which now replaces the first file has reduced the resolution to such an extent that some of the identifying information, specifically, the name of the orchestra, is now illegible. I am wondering, if I upload a file with an intermediate level of resolution (between the first copy and the bot-produced copy) at which the orchestra name will again be readable, whether this will meet fair-use criteria for a majority of editors. Should I just go ahead and upload a new version to see whether it will be challenged? (I'm not sure whether this is the correct talk page for this question, but this is the one I found. The template that was added to the file does not appear to provide a link to an appropriate talk page for discussing its addition to the file page.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally for our purposes, 300x300 pixels is what we use for album covers for display on here. What you can do is put the information of the orchestra, catalog number, etc, using text on the image description page and also on the article. If we can reproduce the information by text, having such a larger image is not needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the 300x300 size is based on CD covers? This is an LP which starts out considerably larger, so reducing to 300x300 requires a much larger decrease in the resolution. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Infobox used for album covers and from the Wikiproject Albums. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked those pages and was unable to find any guidance suggesting 300x300 pixels. There was some old discussion about 300px width as a rule of thumb, but it seemed to date to 2007. Perhaps the 300px guidelines have been moved? (I did not spend a lot of time looking for this.) I also didn't run across any discussion of LPs vs. CDs, although this may be archived somewhere. The fair use guideline linked from the "Non-free reduced" template says: "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)." I interpreted this to mean that if a digital copy is of low enough resolution to be unsuitable for counterfeiting the original, then it is OK under fair use law, but that may not be a correct interpretation. In any case, I have to agree with the rationale on that page that Wikipedia policy should "minimize legal exposure by ... using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." So it is probably better to err on the low side rather than the high, and the newer lower resolution image is better in that regard. In the future I will try to avoid uploading images that skirt the ill-defined borderline of the low resolution criterion. Thanks for your help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2011 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 18 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.