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 F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kessler,Glenn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• From EXIF data:

PH/STAFF Washington Post Studio DATE: 2/18/03 PHOTO: Julia Ewan/TWP CAPTION: Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post - National. Eeekster (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The source in the upload log given is Mr. Kessler's official website. I feel it is highly unlikely such an image on that website would be freely available. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:15, 13 January 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The result of the discussion was: speedy keep - withdrawn. —Darkwind (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rem 597.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of a copyrighted object with no creative or transformative elements. —Darkwind (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn. —Darkwind (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is the object copyrighted? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is an industrial product, IIRC, industrial design isn't protected in such a manner as fine art, otherwise, File:IPad 3.png wouldn't reside on Commons. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment indeed, almost every image on commons would need to be deleted, as containing products with copyrighted industrial designs. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to commons as many other industrial designed products are residing on Commons, so if they can reside there, then there's no problem with this. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 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: speedy keep - withdrawn. —Darkwind (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rolex Submariner watch 16613.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of a (probably) copyrighted three-dimensional work. —Darkwind (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn. —Darkwind (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is the object copyrighted? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:17, 13 January 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.