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⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sascha Meinrath Profile.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source website shows a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which is not compatible with the file being hosted here. Dianna (talk) 00:55, 24 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• wrongfully licensed under PD when original work was CC-BY-SA-NC 3.0 LoganLopez (talk) 01:49, 24 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heather's Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader claims this is their own work, yet I am not so sure. The photo is available at several places online, such as here and here. Dianna (talk) 03:04, 24 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: keep, now licensed under fair use. — ξ^xplicit 01:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of the girl on the pillow. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't we fair-use this, given that apparently part of the point of such a pillow is that it has the image on it? Mangoe (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. If you search for "抱き枕", you will only find pillows with copyrighted art. I think that this only can be replaced by other unfree images. I've added a copyright tag and a fair use rationale. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 28 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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 01:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Alan Stevenson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no evidence that this was published before 1926 as required by ((PD-URAA)). Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why the template says PD-UK-unknown - if you have an issue with the template fix the template

Realistically the guy died in 1938 at the age of 84 - this pic is clearly taken much earlier Gbawden (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the template ((PD-UK-unknown)) only tells that the photo is in the public domain in the United Kingdom whereas you need to show that it is in the public domain in the United States. You have to show that the image either was published before 1926 or that it wasn't published at all before 2003. Otherwise it's still protected by copyright in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Acto this page the image came from Edinburgh and the Lothians at the Opening of the Twentieth Century which I find was published in 1904. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 29 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: Keep, with the addition of a Fair Use rationale. Dianna (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper hunter shire council logo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is likely too complex for ((PD-textlogo)). Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first looked at the file today I admit, I was surprised that the uploader had issued it under a free license,[1] but looking at it more closely I don't see that it is anything more than simple shapes and typefaces. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a red horse with white ears (or something) which looks very complex, and in particular more complex than the man with a suitecase here which is protected by copyright in the United States, and definitely more complex than File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg which is protected by copyright in Australia. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although copyrighted in Australia, File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is not eligible for copyright in the US. I'm surprised that the signs were ever copyrighted as they don't seem to meet the threshold for originality. Despite its appearance, the Upper Hunter Shire Council logo is not a complex drawing although I would expect it would be copyrighted in Australia, just like the Australian Aboriginal flag. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has a Threshold of originality that is considered to be quite low. I think the file should be converted to fair use, as the logo is pretty complex. -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia uses US copyright law only, but I still think that this is too complex for US law. It looks similar to the man with the suitcase. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 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⚡ 20:14, 25 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Updike (author), 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this was taken "circa 2008" and that the photo was made by the US government. However, the image on this page seems to be the same photo (although cropped and in lower quality) and already appeared on that page in 2006, two years before the event mentioned at the government website. This means that the photo presumably wasn't taken by the US government but by someone else. See also this website from 2006. Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is here in cropped form and it gives credit to Random House and here, on Random House's site, where they state (c) Martha Updike. There are other web sources attributing the image to Martha Updike. I think this is a duck - it doesn't qualify as a USG photograph. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 13:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The image has since been published on the website of a federal government agency, and is thus included in the public domain. Perhaps the original copyright holder should be credited, but beyond that this photo is authorized. "Circa 2008," incidentally, includes 2006. Thanks, Reverend Eccles (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, ((PD-USGov)) requires that the photographer was paid his salary by the US government. Mere use of a work made by someone else on a website owned by the US government does not put the photo in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stefan2, note that the "copyrighted" photo in question on the other website actually differs from the uploaded photo. No copyright information is included on the website of the federal agency, and the uploaded photo should not be deleted. The photo was uploaded and added to the John Updike article in good faith, and is understood to be public domain.Reverend Eccles (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This image was also credited to Martha Updike by NPR back in 2006, making her as the source of the image more likely. That it has now ended up (albeit with a different crop/tint/etc.) on a government website does not automatically make it ((PD-USGov)), and unfortunately a good faith effort does not always ensure a correct result. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A google image search reveals that the photo has been used on all sorts of websites without a copyright symbol. The only time a copyright symbol appears with the image is on a microscopic thumbnail on the Random House website. Again, the NEH, an agency of the federal government, has published the uploaded photo without any copyright information. Reverend Eccles (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And, as noted above, the fact that the NEH published it is irrelevant to the copyright status - it does not make it "public domain". As you have clearly identified here, at least one source claims they own the copyright and there is strong evidence to suggest they have a valid claim. As this media is easily replaceable, it should be deleted. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 09:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the above arguments discount the fact that the image was published by a federal agency without a credit. In closing, unless a user can provide copyright information on the image to prove that it isn't public domain, the John Updike article now has an excellent cover photo. Reverend Eccles (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, that was already proved in the first comment in this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 29 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Fegi with Ryan Cayabyab.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Google suggests that this is the same image as File:Anna Fegi Ryan Cayabyab.jpg which was deleted for lack of evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is owned by myself and my wife, the subject of the picture. It was taken in the early 2000s when she was working with Ryan Cayabyab in his studio in Manila. I guarantee that I own this photo as I scanned it from the original print onto my computer. This photo is ours and has not been used anywhere else online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untdrum99 (talk • contribs) 2013-01-24T14:21:12

It is irrelevant to know who owns the physical photo. It is only necessary to know who the photographer is and whether the photographer allows the image to be licensed under a free licence. See #File:Anna Fegi Autographs.jpg below. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 24 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moa before-after.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a copyright violation of Google Maps. Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 24 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Fegi Autographs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright problems, see User talk:VernoWhitney#File:Anna Fegi Signing.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is owned by myself and my wife, Anna Fegi, who is the subject of the photo. This photo was taken in 2004 and I personally scanned the original print (from a 35mm camera) onto my computer. We own the photo ourselves and have all rights to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untdrum99 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:VernoWhitney, ticket:2012101110001276 states that you are not the photographer. Permission is needed from the photographer in order to keep this. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 24 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:MOA lvl1.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like a copyright violation of Google Maps. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader captioned the photo here as "Google's map...", which seems conclusive. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 17:49, 24 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: keep, with the addition of a fair-use rationale. Dianna (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cognifitlogo12709.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I think that the head is too complex for ((PD-textlogo)). Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I think the form represents a single shape with curves that mirror a general human face form, which is not entirely unique. But I'll change it to non-free use. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the head is at least as unique as the man with a suitcase here. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the logo to non-free fair use on the page. The website indeed says that the image has been trademarked. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 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⚡ 23:01, 24 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:CJCL1430-AM-world-series.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a TV broadcast. The game in question was re-aired recently. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:57, 24 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rabbi M Schneersohn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears everywhere on the Internet. No reason to believe that the uploader is the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Tineye search gives plenty of links for this image, the first hit I got is virtually identical! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:45, 27 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.