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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wood - West Side Story still.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There are two sources saying they got the photo from Reuters. One on July 9, 2012, credits Reuters and another on July 7, 2012 says "Actress Natalie Wood portrays character 'Maria" in scene from 1961 film "West Side Story" in this undated publicity photograph released to Reuters on November 18, 2011. (Courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment/Handout)." It appears the photo may not have been published until November 2011. We hope (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lancs NUM bagde.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a badge. The badge might be in the public domain, but there is no way to tell without more information. Stefan2 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nom is correct.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The badge on the photograph belongs to me, but whatever.J3Mrs (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you create the badge? Ownership of the badge doesn't give you copyright to the badge. I own DVDs of Mama's Family, but that doesn't give me the right to upload them to the internet.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I didn't, I didn't claim copyright of the badge or anything else I photographed, I claimed ownership of the badge which is at least 60 years old and hasn't been produced since the Lancashire area NUM became the North West area NUM. Does that mean a plaque I photographed is unsuitable because it is copyright? As I said whatever.J3Mrs (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete it I can't be bothered.J3Mrs (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • For plaques, the laws differ from country to country. In some countries, such as Israel, you can take photos of them if they are permanently located in a public place. In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, you can't take photos of them. See Commons:COM:FOP for details. You might also be interested in the recently closed Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Information boards in England. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Photo of jewelry without evidence that the jewelry is public domain or otherwise freely licensed: Derivative work. GrapedApe (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:HowDoorBoweryPoetryClub2006.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo of art/poem. The text says "A basement door in New York City's Bowery Poetry Club with the opening lines to Howl." so it is probably added on purpose. MGA73 (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2012 (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. If anyone is doubtful of the permission, by all means mark it as missing permission (npd). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ACABASHI OASIS WIKI.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is probably a copyrighted song. Either we need a permission of or a non-free rationale + a shorter version. MGA73 (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Uploaded at a time when not fully conversant with types of proof needed. The file is own work but how to prove this for WP ? Publishing to Habana Music Publishing Ltd, 3 February 1994, under Trussell/Hostick as composers and musicians; Tune code: 2200259A; ISWC no: T-010.870.094-2; WIBB no: 0005059918. CAE nos: Hostick, 51529787; Trussell, 73076089; Habana, 177290155. Other oggs on the page could come under the same scrutiny; the background to them is similar to the above. If the decision is to delete the ogg, so be it. Acabashi (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Aha my mistake. I did not realise that the uploader was also the creator (or one of them). I think we need a formal permission send to OTRS. I have to go for today but if you need more help just leave a note here. --MGA73 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a mistake MGA73 - we need to do these things properly - when you are back I'll ask your advice on how to proceed if I can't work it out - I'm particularly green in this area. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entrance to Celebration V.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the "posters". Per Commons:Commons:FOP#United_States there is only freedom of panorama for buildings in the US. MGA73 (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This image was taken from the outside of a public building, from a public sidewalk, depicting a government owned building. They are derivatives of the posters. The signs on the outside of the public-owned building happen to pertain to the event in the article. As an aside, Lucas Arts has a big legal dept and you can be sure they watch Wikipedia. For 2 years, they haven't said a word. Further, you should come to me first instead of questioning my integrity via public means. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all the question is not who took the photo and therefore not about your integrity. My question is if the posters/signs/banners are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License or if Freedom of panorama or de minimis would apply here (you can read more about derivative works here). The fact that noone complained is not a good argument. When you license your photo with ((cc-by-3.0)) you allow anyone to use the photo even for commercial purposes. Are you sure that Lucas Arts would also accept if the photo is used by one of the competitors for commercial purposes? --MGA73 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is about integrity when you accuse me of violating the law. Second, I didn't make the arguement that nobody complained. I said "as an aside".....in other words, just as a note. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, at least be right yourself. The image doesn't depict banners..it depicts a publicly owned building, as viewed from a public sidewalk, on a day those banners happened to be there. This is no different than taking a picture of a Mustang in a parking lot and using it in the article. We take exterior picutres of stores, including their copyrighted signs, on a daily basis and use them in articles. The article this image is in contains two other images of a similar nature, including one that focuses heavily on the banners. But you decided to try to imply that I did something illegal. Yeah, that's an integrity issue my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My only goal here is to make sure that files hosted on Wikipedia has a valid license. Should the result be that the file is kept I would be happy to post a bit "I'M SORRY" on your talk page if it could be helpfull.

If the building (the Orange County Convention Center?) is the most important on the photo we should be able to add another photo of the building. But my guess is that it would not be just as interessting as your photo. Therefore the banners are in focus.

Yes Wikipedia:Other stuff exists but IMO that is not a good argument. The reason I nominated your photo is that it was the one I noticed. According to Special:Statistics we have 787,296 Uploaded files on Wikipedia. It will take years to check them all :-( If your file is deleted it would ofcourse be wise to handle the same files the same way.

As for "a picture of a Mustang in a parking lot" I suggest to take a look at this text about "useful articles". The car has an utilitarian function and the banner does not. --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I listed #File:Star Wars Celebration IV sign.jpg below. I did not list File:Entrance-MSavage.jpg because it is mostly simple text. It may still be a problem but I suggest to discuss these two first. --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Will you please stop telling me that arguements I'm not even making aren't valid? That's twice you've done it and it's getting annoying. Concentrate on what I DO say and not what I didn't say. As for your consdescending "if that were the focus" crapola, once again, you're missing the point and clearly, you are hell bent on eliminating not only this picture, but now other ones. The banners did have a function besides being "art". They were to inform people that the event was happening.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If I do not agree with your arguments what else can I do? I can tell you that I do not agree and why or I could ignore you. I think it is better to tell why I do not agree. --MGA73 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pay attention. You are disagreeing with arguments that I'm not making. I didn't make the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument and I didn't make the "nobody complained" argument, yet you insist on telling me that an argument that I'm not making isn't valid. No shit it's not valid, which is probably why I didn't make it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See below. --MGA73 (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can understand the frustration here, and there are other similar images on Star Wars Celebration, as Niteshift36 notes, no doubt also uploaded in good faith and with the images owned by the uploader. But it looks as though this image and the others don't concentrate on a wide view of the convention building (and why should they ? - not much use if they did), or long shots of Stormtroopers as another picture on the page shows, but has someone's creative artwork as its prime subject, whether intended or not, which is tricky for copyright reasons. I sympathise with Niteshift36 who took the trouble to offer the image to WP, but I think there is probably a copyright problem here, and the pointing out of this I don't think is personal. Who of us have not fallen foul of Wikipedia copyright strictures at some point and had our images removed ? Acabashi (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. There is no copyright issue here. Again, the publicly visible banners were on the side of the publicly owned building. There was no expectation by the banner owners that it would be private or even selectively viewed. In fact, it would be unreasonable for them to think that it would not be photographed. In fact, one of those banners was replicated inside the building and designated as a "photo spot" by a sign placed by banner owners. Why not just change the licensing to a fair use rationale and be done with this? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See below. --MGA73 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, see below. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No freedom of panorama for advertisements in the United States. The advertisements are a central element of the photo and the left and right advertisements are definitely copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, why not just change it to a fair use rationale and end this? There is no free equivalent, since the event is two years past, there would be no impact on the marketing use. It could also qualify under WP:LOGO. Instead of spending all your effort trying to delete a photo that is actually useful, why don't you take a second to figure out how to keep it? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole idea of listing files here is to have a place to discuss if the file is free or not. I noticed that other users agreed with me that the file is not free.

I think it would be hard to write a valid fair use rationale but if someone can I would not object to keeping the file. --MGA73 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I just listed 3 reasons, but instead of actually addressing something I did actually put forth, you choose to concentrate on talking about arguments that I didn't even make. Clearly you have zero interest in trying to be helpful with anything, just with "being right" and "solving" a problem that doesn't really exist. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "The article this image is in contains two other images of a similar nature, including one that focuses heavily on the banners. But you decided to try to imply that I did something illegal." - that is why I wrote about "Other stuff exists". So why did you mention the other files if it is not about "Other stuff exists"?

You wrote "As an aside, Lucas Arts has a big legal dept and you can be sure they watch Wikipedia. For 2 years, they haven't said a word." that is why I wrote about "noone complained". Why did you mention that Lucas Art haven't said a word if it is not about "noone complained"?

I have provided many links to back up my arguments and have not called you stupid or told that you have zero interest in <whatever> etc. all my arguments have been based on facts and not personal attacks so I think that I am trying to solve this and to be helpfull.

Finally you say that a problem with the file doesn't really exist (if I understand your argument right). If you are right about that you do not need to worry because then this Puf will be closed as a "keep". --MGA73 (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I wrote. Not only did I write it, I have the ability to scroll up and see it. What you fail to grasp is that those weren't the argument against deleting. Why did I mention the "other stuff"? To illustrate your slip-shod, random application of the rules and how willing you were to ignore one item in your haste to accuse me of violating the law. Get it yet? Why did I mention nobody has complained? A better question is why would you think that is an argument? Yes, I told you that you have zero interest in trying to retain the picture. That's not a personal attack. You've clearly demonstrated that you don't. When I suggested changing the licensing, rather than explore that, you simply complained it would be too difficult. I've seen you make a concerted effort to delete (and add more to the list) but not a single move to help retain it, thus saying you have zero interest is completely accurate. I haven't called you stupid, so your allegation is simply false. I did, in an edit summary, say "don't be stupid". I also attempted to fix that edit summary because it was harsh, but the next edit wouldn't take. No, there is not a problem, except the one you've created. The picture should be eligible under WP:LOGO as a non-free (a guideline I did link to, since you claim I haven't done any of those), but you simply dimissed it out of hand. Once again, you clearly have zero interest in being helpful or trying work on a way to retain a useful picture. That's not a personal attack, but if you want to insist that it is, I'm sure you know how to get to WP:WQANiteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I fail to grasp is why you post a lot of comments here if they are not "against deleting" the file.

You told me from the beginning that It's free. Now you say it could be kept as "non-free"! If you now agree it is non-free you would also have to agree that you added a wrong license to the file.

Personally I think it is a problem that a file has a wrong license. That is why I tagged the file to begin with. If it can be fixed then by all means fix it. Don't just remove the notice and "shoot the messenger".

You have complained many times above that I was "talking about arguments that I didn't even make". In your last comment you say to me that "...you claim I haven't do ne any of those [links]". Well, I don't rember to have claimed that you did not make links. I wrote above that "I have provided many links to back up my arguments..." to demonstrate that it is not just something I have made up to annoy you. I think you read this as a "... and you did not..."? Why is that? Because human nature is that we sometimes understand the same message in different ways? --MGA73 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I'm against deleting the file. What on earth makes you think I'm not? I still contend that it is free, but in the event that I'm wrong, I'm suggesting that it can still be used as a non-free image. Maybe it was the wrong license. I don't claim to be the authority on copyright law and I strong suspect you aren't either. (I suspect you just know a few things you've read here and try to appear to be an expert.) Suggesting changing the license clearly indicates that I am trying to keep it from deletion, so either way, I'm still against deletion. What is confusing about that? Is it the fact that I am willing to approach it from a different angle that confuses you? As for the links part....you yakked about how you provided links, implying that I have not. No, you didn't type the words, but the message was there. No my friend, you haven't been helpful. You've only justified your actions. Helpful would have been sending me a message when you saw what you felt was a potential issue. Helpful would not be dismissing ideas as too difficult without really dicussing them. You're likely going to win your little victory here (and spare me the link to WP:WINNING because I am convinced that you look at this as winning or losing) and manage to remove 2 useful pictures from that article, but I will not ever believe that I was wrong in putting that picture up here to enhance the article. You haven't protected any copyright or saved Wikipedia from a lawsuit, you just made Wikipedia a little more boring and a little less informative. Good job. Have the last word. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong here. For me it is not about winning but about making sure that files have the right license - free or non-free. I'm sorry that you think that I haven't been helpful but it seems there is nothing I can say that will make you think otherwise. --MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SOBO-Rock-n-Blues-Band-1995.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Text says from "www.sobo.co.il" and older version said "Photo by Zeev Ackelman 1995". It looks like a professional photo. MGA73 (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2012 (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, license adjusted. — ξ^xplicit 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No evidence of permission but is it copyrightable? Stefan2 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The tag is clearly bogus (I doubt they created it), but you're probably right in that it's too simple to be copyrighted. Tag with ((pd-textlogo)) and carry on. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever's going on, this shouldn't be deleted; it's either PD-ineligible or a perfect example of proper fair use for a logo. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info: It was moved from File:Nbcnewscom.jpg.png to File:Nbcnewscom logo.png. --MGA73 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2012 (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, seems to be a misunderstanding. — ξ^xplicit 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of the Syrian Uprising- June (Final).gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader lists both [1] and ((self)) as source. I can't find this image in the PDF file. No evidence that the uploader drew the country borders etc. on the map and the fact that a PDF file is listed as source is suspicious. Stefan2 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? I created this map based on the information in the PDF file, which is a reliable source. What's wrong with that?---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (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⚡ 10:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakshmi Rai Photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not a reliable author who ownsthe copyright Jenith (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Weston with the Weston Farman 1911.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of permission but likely PD because of age, although we need more information to prove this. Stefan2 (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khasan monitor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is in the public domain because it is a pre-1954 Soviet photo. I don't see why pre-1954 Soviet photos automatically would be in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jagat murari in pic.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It is irrelevant that no one knows who the copyright holder is. Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2012 (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 - appears to be public domain in Greece; unclear on licensing status of Greek government works in the US, but this should be handled en masse for all foreign government copyrighted works on Commons, not piecemeal. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This work was published outside the United States, so ((PD-US-no notice)) doesn't apply. Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is a scan from the page of a state-owned newspaper 'ΕΛΛΑΣ' of 1944. The newspaper was a short-lived governmental publication during the Dekemvriana battles.

The upper section of the page contains the text of the high-command of Greece at the time (Scobi), therefore it falls to public-domain, as explained in wikimedia commons Greece's exemptions.

I changed the template to template:PD-GreekGov. Please remove the deletion notice if all are OK.

Sperxios (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo for Ruch Palikota.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be eligible for copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Martin Devaney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:James Devaney with wife and unknown child.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I can't find any PD reason on the source website. Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/153922680?q=subject%3A%22Devaney%2C+James%22&c=picture&versionId=167828216 - copyright expired.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so when was it taken? PD in AU doesn't automatically mean PD in US. If taken in 1946 or later, it is still copyrighted in the United States.

When was it first published? The National Library of Australia only lists a 2005 publication. Was that the first publication of the photo? In that case, the photo is copyrighted for 120 years from creation in the United States, even if taken before 1946. ((PD-URAA)) requires creation before 1946 and publication before 1 March 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Bulloch Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not ((PD-USGov)). I'm not aware of any special PD provisions for Georgia. Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthony Becht WVU.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This was published after 1989, so it is copyrighted even if published without copyright notice. Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2012 (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⚡ 21:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Moldenhauer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No licence. Cropped from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-08950, Tennismeister Moldenhauer und Prenn.jpg which has a licence. Would it be safe to just copy the licence from the other image? Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh? I'm far from a copyright expert, but surely if the image it's cropped from is licensed as CC-BY-SA, which means it's allowed to be remixed, then it's OK to crop it, right? And seeing as the the cropped image clearly states that it's a crop of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-08950, Tennismeister Moldenhauer und Prenn.jpg, then isn't that enough attribution? Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• MtC and add the same license as the original file has. Cropping a file does not give the uploader any copyright to the file so we do not need uploader to add a license for the cropping. --MGA73 (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, done. I assumed that the cropping was below the threshold of originality, but I wanted to ask here first. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Patrick (playwright).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that "I paid for the work to be made and it belongs fully to me" but it is unclear if the uploader only paid for a copy of the photo or also for the copyright of the photo. Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2012 (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 with addition of fair-use rationale for two articles. Dianna (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that this was taken before 1976. Italian photos taken since 1976, as well as photos not published before 1 March 1989, are still copyrighted in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is an iconographic historical image of two anti-Mafia judges brutally killed by the Mafia. As discussed in the articles Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino this image now symbolizes the fight against the Mafia. I don't know what the proper license or rationale should be -- these seem to change every month or so -- but I am sure that if the nominator would be so kind to use his profound knowledge of copyright issues and would take a minute of his precious time reading the articles in which the image is used, he will no doubt find the right license or rationale for this image. Thank you in advance for the effort. - DonCalo (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a iconic image used to protest against the Mafia in Italy. Its used here on stamps, here on shirts. --Vic49 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I sent a query to the author of this photograph regarding its copyright status, I recommend we put this nomination on hold until we have obtained further information. --DarTar (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Undated Vera King Farris picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of permission and "for media use" is too restrictive anyway. Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:''Dr. Ramaiah Naidu, Nuclear Physicist.jpg''.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Created "circa 1948" is too old for an Indian photo: this was still copyrighted in India on the URAA date. Stefan2 (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gigue in G.mid (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See m:Wikilegal/MIDI Files#Can I upload my video to the Wikimedia Commons if I derived the soundtrack from someone else's MIDI performance of public domain music? Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:North Carolina LME MCO Map February 2012.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Created by a US state so not ((PD-USGov)). Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2012 (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, ((PD-US-no notice)) appears to be appropriate here. — ξ^xplicit 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Back of correspondence chess card.tif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No date available, so it is not clear if lack of copyright notice is sufficient. Not sure if eligible for copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't eligible for a copyright, then there is no copyright violation. These were printed by the US Chess Federation in the 1960s and maybe before. There is no claim of a copyright on the card. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is from the 1960s, it should be free as ((PD-US-no notice)) if nothing else. If it is pre-1964, I would also assume that the copyright wasn't renewed (who renews the copyright to an unimportant form?), so ((PD-US-not renewed)) should also apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know they were printing these in the late 1960s, but I can't say for sure about before 1964. But there is no copyright notice. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 12:13, 19 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venu Thomas With Dalai Lama.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seems to be a photo of the uploader, not by the uploader. The copyright belongs to the photographer, not to the subject of the photo. Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2012 (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 with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joan Pujol 7th Light Infantry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't agree with the PD reason. As far as I can see, this would only qualify for ((PD-URAA)) if the photographer died before 1916. Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The status was discussed on the article page when it was first placed on the page. The discussion agreed that it was a government photograph of Joan Pujol. K8 fan (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain the copyright status, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of a government generated photograph by a government that no longer exists? How does one verify that? K8 fan (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spain still exists and there have been Spanish governments ever since. Once a government ceases to exist, i would assume that the following government inherits the copyrights belonging to the former government. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person taking photographs of a military recruit is, in pretty much every case, a government employee. Do you have a cite for the copyright status of current Spanish government created images? Or the copyright policies of the Second Spanish Republic, or some way of determining which should apply? Barring some evidence that, unlike official induction photographs of other countries, the Second Spanish Republic hired private photographers or retained the copyright of the images of thousands of recruits, I think the status of this one can be assumed to be free. K8 fan (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around: if there is no evidence that the image is free, then it should be assumed to be unfree. Anyway, if you read Spanish copyright law, you will see that Spain has had a rule since the 19th century saying that copyright expires 80 years after the death of the last surviving co-author, and I am not aware of any exceptions for government works. Since this is a post-1923 work, URAA is supposed to give it copyright protection in the United States as well. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at various images from the time period, this one from 1932 is assumed to be in the public domain because it is more than 70 years since the image was created, not from the death of the photographer. I think your interpretation is not valid in the case of a government snap-shot of a recruit. It is not an artistic photograph. K8 fan (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the photo of Albert Lebrun is a French photo, not a Spanish one. France and Spain had different copyright terms on 1 January 1996. In Spain, a photo taken in 1932 had a copyright term of life+80 years whereas in France a photo taken in 1932 only had a copyright term of life+58 years+120 days. Thus, a French photo from 1932 would be in the public domain in France on 1 January 1996 if the photographer died in 1937 or earlier, whereas a Spanish photo only would be in the public domain in Spain on 1 January 1996 if the photographer died in 1915 or earlier. Furthermore, it says that the photographer of the French photo died at least 70 years ago, but I'm not sure how people came to that conclusion since no photographer has been listed. A different copyright term might have applied to anonymous works, but I'm not sure what the French or Spanish copyright terms were for anonymous works at that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A government photograph of a military recruit would seem to be "work for hire", in that a military induction photograph is intended to be owned by the government, rather than by the photographer and licensed to the government. From the work for hire article:

In the European Union, even if a Member State provides for the possibility of a legal person to be the original rightholder (such as is possible in the UK),[8][9] then the duration of protection is in general the same as the copyright term for a personal copyright: i.e., for a literary or artistic work, 70 years from the death of the human author, or in the case of works of joint authorship, 70 years from the death of the last surviving author. If the natural author or authors are not identified, nor become known subsequently, then the copyright term is the same as that for an anonymous or pseudonymous work, i.e. 70 years from publication for a literary or artistic work; or, if the work has not been published in that time, 70 years from creation.

Relevant portion bolded. K8 fan (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are some exceptions to that in some cases. Before the above rules were decided upon, some countries had copyright terms which were longer than the above rules. For example, Spain applied life+80 years for works by known authors, the UK applied a term of publication+50 years for works not published during the author's lifetime and Germany applied a term of life of painter+70 years for paintings by anonymous painters (if I've understood things correctly). In these cases, the EU directive does, I believe, state that if the works were created before the EU directive was applied, then the country should apply either the new term or the old term, whichever is longer. That's why Spanish copyrights still expire 80 years (not 70 years) after the death of the last surviving co-author. I have no idea what the old term was for Spanish anonymous works. In either case, EU works can only be free in the United States if they were either published before 1923 or free in the country of origin (in this case Spain) on 1 January 1996. This photo fails both criteria. It has not been published before 1923. The minimum possible EU copyright term is creation+70 years, and 1996 was less than 70 years after the year of creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a government photograph, an anonymous work created 76 years ago, more than the EU mandated 70 years. What is the arbitration process for this, as this appears to be one person arguing with another. The image is not absolutely vital to the article, but as the subject was a spy, there are few enough images available. K8 fan (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing EU law with US law. The important thing is that this was created less than 70 years before 1 January 1996 and that the minimum EU copyright term is 70 years since creation. A Spanish work created less than 70 years before 1 January 1996 is always copyrighted in the United KingdomStates, usually for 95 years since its first publication. The present copyright status in Spain is irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (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⚡ 22:13, 15 September 2012 (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 all five images with the addition of appropriate licensing templates. Dianna (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:DOSAAF Badge 50 yrs.jpg
• File:MVD Propagandist badge.png
• File:OGPU 10th anniversary soviet badge.jpg
• File:Soviet Badge "blood donor 1st class".jpg
• File:Badge "25 years victory in the war 1941-1945".jpg

The badges seem to be Commons:Template:PD-RU-exempt but see Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet: the photos are unlicensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "personal photo" don't you understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei.smolnikov (talk • contribs)

That's a source, not a licence. But presumably, I missed that statement. Anyway, the problem is that the photos are unlicensed. The current licence templates only refer to the subjects of the photos but not to the photos themselves. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll add a license. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2012 (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: Old versions deleted, newer versions kept. This is clearly a derivative work of the previous upload, but it is unclear to me that it is eligible for copyright (see threshold of originality). If the original content creator believes it is and is offended by the license, by all means renominate it for deletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Decision tree for IUPAC polymer nomenclature.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to have a No Derivative Works condition on the license. Eeekster (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2012 (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 MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:IUPAC example Single-Strand Inorganic Polymer.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No licence. Not sure if it is simple enough for ((PD-chem)). Stefan2 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (if usefull). I would go for ((PD-chem)) - see Commons:Category:PD chem for other PD-chem files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2012 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conveyor Belt Cleaner.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't agree that this is ineligible for copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File is not under copyright, and was given direct permission of use by owner. 1jtwidell (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2012

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Star Wars Celebration IV sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the banner? See #File:Entrance_to_Celebration_V.JPG. MGA73 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No FOP in USA and the banner is obviously not de minimis. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2012 (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.