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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:First ever "Bash".jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims to be the creator of the work, but a reverse Google search shows that it has been used on several websites over time. Likely under copyright, but I was unable to find the exact original source. Description of image is false and associated with a vandalism article created by the uploader. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:43, 19 February 2013 (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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:N.E.S.I. Master Gear Box Front.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• According to the Hirtle chart (if I'm understanding it correctly), this image, published in 1991, has a copyright that does not expire until 95 years after publication. Dianna (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2013 (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: Delete - Anonymous and no indication of publication prior to 2011, needs to be 120+ years old to be definitely out of copyright NtheP (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The rue du Pot de Fer, Paris, in the early 1920s.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• We don't have enough information here to determine the copyright status of the image. It is likely still under copyright. Dianna (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies Photography and the law. The photograph was exhibited at an exhibition in 2011 at La Mairie of the 5ième Arrondissement, which includes the location of the photograph. The photograph had no notice of creation, ownership, or any restriction on publication. It is (in certain contexts) an important photograph. No known or claimed creator or rights owner has been ascertained in searches by the uploader. Rrhallmark (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons:Hirtle chart shows that the 70-year rule only applies for unpublished works where the name of the photographer is known. In reviewing the Hirtle chart for cases where the name and date of death of the photographer are not known, we really need to know what year the image was first published and whether or not copyright protection in compliance with US formalities was in place at that time to determine what the copyright status is today. -- Dianna (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only information says that this was exhibited in Paris in 2011. If this is a private unpublished photo which someone has digged up and which has never been published before, then the copyright to this photo expires in the United States either 70 years after the death of the photographer (if the photographer's identity is known) or 120 years after creation (if the photographer's identity isn't known). There is no evidence that the photographer's identity is known and there is no evidence that the photographer died at least 70 years ago and this is not yet 120 years old. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:A communiqué from the British Embassy in Dublin to the British Forreign and Commonwealth office in London.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is a "declassified embassy communiqué document released under the 30 year rule". I'm not aware of any 30 year rule. ((PD-UKGov)) uses a 50 year rule, but this is not yet 50 years old. Stefan2 (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:4179 Toutatis (Chang'e 2).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because publically released image from the Chinese National Space Agency"

As far as I can tell, works made by the Chinese National Space Agency are copyrighted. Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images put out by the govt press agency have no indication of copyright.[1] — kwami (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notices have no legal effect on the copyright status of Chinese works unless the work was made before 1946, in which case a copyright notice sometimes affects the copyright status in the United States (and only in the United States). This was clearly taken after 1946. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to fairuse the only photos of the asteroid are from the Chinese space probe, this is also the first visit of the asteroid. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why convert to fair use, when we can Delete? So much more fun to go around deleting stuff. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012 MS tag.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the reason invalid or the source disputed? The image was created by the State of Mississippi and is displayed on the Governor's web site. What other source would be preferred? There are other images of the tag on this site: http://www.dor.ms.gov/mvl/availabletags.html , but they are all very low resolution and you can not see the detail of the design. Bluedragon1971 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says that "This file is in the public domain, because official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin," which is not true since the file wasn't made by the US federal government. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting the file, as there's no reason why a free alternative could not be created, simply by photographing a license plate. California and Florida are as far as I know the only two states that freely release all their material to the public domain. -- Dianna (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what this one looked like, but most of the licence plates at [2] are clearly above the threshold of originality, so a photo of a licence plate on a car would also be unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2013 (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 F9 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajaydevgndev4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:B-w Claus Bergen painter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Claus Bergen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Portrait of Claus Bergen with seascape.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Three copies of the same photo with different licences and source. No evidence that it is in the public domain. Not sufficiently sourced, so WP:NFCC#10c isn't satisfied. Stefan2 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find an online source that predates the upload. Deleting. -- Dianna (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2013 (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: Kept, with the addition of a fair use rationale for one article. Dianna (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:BK Brocēni logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD reason. Not sure if it is too complex for PD-textlogo or not. Stefan2 (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2013 (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 James086 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bowen Island ferry 1946.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Post-1945 Canadian photo. It is in the public domain in Canada but not in the United States. The City of Vancouver Archives presumably only care about the copyright status in Canada. Stefan2 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for pointing this out. I reloaded the image at very low resolution and added an historical image fair use template plus the following licensing comment:

"With regard to Canada, this Canadian-created image was given to the City of Vancouver Archives, and that owner lists it as in the public domain. (Mr. Lindsay donated this image and some 98,000 others to the City of Vancouver Archives.) As to the USA, the image reproduced here is a unique historical image of very low resolution compared to the original and as such is believed to quality as fair use in the USA." Dayton4449 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (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⚡ 00:02, 6 March 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carmen Sandiego games2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cerne-abbas-giant-1950.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Anonymous works are protected for 70 years (not 50 years) in the United Kingdom. However, this is irrelevant as Wikipedia uses US law instead of British law, and US law uses 95 years since publication. This is not yet 95 years old. Stefan2 (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think photos have a different copyright period, 50 years for anonymous works (ref). But this could be contradicted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which says anonymous artistic works are copyright 70 years after publication (ref) It may be that the image is considered a "film", in which case the 1998 Act confirms 50 years. I contacted the CUCAP Librarian in October 2012, and the reply was that "I can confirm that the image FC67 is now out of copyright". --Iantresman (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page you found mainly discusses the minimum permitted copyright term for a work under international treaties, so if the copyright holder wishes to enforce his copyright in a foreign country, he will know that he is guaranteed at least the term of protection indicated on that page. British and EU laws provide longer protection, in this case 70 years from publication. It says that this was taken in 1950. If it was also published during that year, then it enters the public domain in the United Kingdom on 1 January 2021. However, as I wrote, Wikipedia uses USA copyright law, which defines a different term. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So I guess that if I can get the previous copyight holder to confirm or acknowledge the release the image into the public domain, by contacting OTRS, then that would confirm the matter. --Iantresman (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Another thought. The Cerne Abbas Giant is generally dated to not later than the 17th century (see article). Under US Law, the photo is a "Derivative works", which is not sufficiently different from the original 17th century per "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.", and "The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on this, however, is that any reproduction of a two-dimensional work in the public domain is not copyrightable"[3]. Does this cover us? --Iantresman (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is only for photos of 2D works. It says that this is an aerial photograph, implying that it is a photo taken at a high altitude of a 3D work. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Every photo of a 2D object is taken in the third dimension away from the surface. I would suggest that the hill is the canvas, and just like any photo, the photograph is taken away from the canvas. The Cerne Giant is two dimensional figure (hill figure). The hill on which it is drawn may be 3-D, but the figure is on the flat side of the hill, and in this respect, differs from a three-dimensional sculpture? --Iantresman (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chase Devineaux.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dist Mil-Pilot GDR bar.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD reason for the badge. Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cia-Cia road sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploaded in 2012 and claimed to be own work by the uploader. However, it seems to be a crop of an image used at http://wdublog.tistory.com/archive/20111117 in 2011 which lists the source as "연합뉴스", a commercial news agency. Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cixi's Dining Room.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged ((PD-art)), but this does not appear to be "a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work." —Bkell (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:No Place for Pope or Kulaks.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD claim. Might be in the public domain for some other reason, but without any information about the age of the item, it's impossible to tell. Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2013 (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: Delete not old enough to be PD Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Oswald Pohl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The copyright tag is based on a German law which was changed about 20 years ago. The copyright term is 70 years p.m.a., not 50 years pr. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have several free-use images at the commons that were taken at the trial. -- Dianna (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gisele Bündchen Vogue Italia December 2010 by Steven Meisel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims the image's purpose is to Provide a representative image of the modelling abilities of the model featured. In other words, the image is decorative and has no contextual significance. Uploader also seems to have uploaded three or four other non-free magazine covers of Gisele Bundchen to unnecessarily replace existing non-free mag covers, so the overall purpose here seems promotional.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:00, 19 February 2013 (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⚡ 15:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Additionally, the image violates WP:NFCC#10c: the FUR is for the wrong article. However, the request was placed at the wrong nomination page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorry that I uploaded pictures of different covers, I didn't realize it would be classified as promotion which is not my intention at all as you have stated it was. But I've seen other models covers posted in several pages without any warning/deletion process so I thought I was not doing any harm. The image information has been changed to represent a neutral stand point of view (purpose, article,etc). Also the image in the article contains the name of the publication, the photographer and date of publication with links to each respective Wikipedia article. ––gustavoz

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; the uploader asserts ownership of the photo. If you think the file should be deleted for other reasons, please post at WP:FFD. Dianna (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doshi with SUST.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Crop of a different image: http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420474_476737239023319_720180921_a.jpg

However, I can only find the other image in thumbnail format. Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not copy of other image. It's the same image taken by me. I could have uploaded the file with the text at right side. But, that was not necessary. The link you provided is actually the store of facebook. As I posted in a closed academic group of Architecture, SUST. From where you have got the small image, as it is closed group. Check, the same academic institution's name is provided in caption. You got the image of this link http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=476737239023319&set=pb.167437293286650.-2207520000.1361306084&type=3&src=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F413299_476737239023319_720180921_o.jpg&smallsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F420474_476737239023319_720180921_n.jpg&size=1571%2C1200 --Rossi101 (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)User:Rossi101[reply]
• Delete This picture is unsuitable. It contains a named individual, and an unnamed individual. It is a breach of the privacy of those individuals. It should be replaced with one containing the named individual only, but there is also the issue of the named individual giving consent for this data to appear in the public domain. Wikipedia is not a place for class snapshots. It is not Facebook. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2013 (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, but tagged as Not for Commons. Dianna (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:North Holderness Railway Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo of a painted map.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure what the copyright rules of this are. The image shows a North Eastern Railway tile map, on the wall at Scarborough station, which was installed around 113 years ago (1900 approx). If it's in a public place, does that mean it's in the public domain? Or does it have copyright, and if so, would that have expired by now? Help please! Svitapeneela (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia uses United States copyright law, which says that you usually can't take a photo of a map hanging on a public wall in the United Kingdom unless the map was placed there before 1923. In the United Kingdom, the rule is instead that you can't take a photo of the map unless the cartographer died before 1943. If the map has been there since around year 1900, then the photo should be fine in the United States, but not necessarily in the United Kingdom, since the death year of the cartographer is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apr192008LA Protest02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged ((cc-by-sa-3.0)), but the source site [4] licenses its content under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. "NonCommercial" is not free enough for Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2013 (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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ihor Pawluk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo of a 2D image.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:21, 19 February 2013 (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: Delete G7  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fron Porch, Abita Mystery House.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Web site (http://abitamysteryhouse.com/pr_photos.htm) claims free press photos, No CC or PD license however - also at foot of web page is "All rights reserved."  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++Feel free to remove the picture. There was a duplicate photo already on the Wiki entry taken by another user which will serve our purposes.--Uploader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aduplantier6 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 February 2013 (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.