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⚡ 02:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Djrichardson atnorthwestern.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be Flickr washing: the description page for the file has a caption from the Daily Illini, although the uploader uploaded it under the Cc-by-sa-2.0 license.

Searching for that caption on Google does return an article from that newspaper, but the image has disappeared from the article in the online version. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:31, 16 June 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ubuntu 11.04.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This screenshot contains a couple of non-free logos or icons: Dell, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird and Skype. According to Commons help pages such a screenshot cannot be published under a free license. --Rprpr (talk) 13:33, 16 June 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 F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pooli (cat).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• On the source website given, the license CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 is claimed. I am not sure if the license tag on the file description page is still valid (and would allow moving to Commons even). Leyo 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is PD for non-renewal of copyright, see http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html

This comes up regularly, and it is confusing. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably means, that the file is also eligible for Commons (Commons:Template:PD-US-not renewed). --Leyo 20:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I know of a few where there was some doubt -- strictly speaking, the Penn list only covers the text, and the photos could have been copyrighted separately. But for routine stories like this, the photos were almost certainly taken by a staff photographer, as "work for hire", and thus wouldn't have a separate copyright. Isn't copyright law fun? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the files to Commons. --Leyo 22:19, 17 June 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⚡ 02:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, presuming this is non-free based on description. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:53, 16 June 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⚡ 02:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarah RB 6.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader is not the author, contrary to his claims. I found his other uploads related to Sarah Geronimo stolen from the internet. I suspect that the uploader "Imager Visioner" is an image stealing sockpuppet of User:White paladin888 who already failed to comply with the copyright rules in January and February 2010 (including an flickr laundering account [1]). Of course both users interaction makes this not so obvious, but besides both users interest in unfree photographs in Sarah they also use the same mobilephone camera which makes this quite obvious. Therefore: Copyvio upload by imagecopyivo sockpuppet, possibly related to the sockpuppet zoo of User:Rars07. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 16 June 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.