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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aslam Abdul Raheem.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image may be CC-BY-SA-3.0, but the amount of image taken up by the trophy can not be called de minimis and would therefore need its own permission  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:20, 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. Assuming the information that it is a studio work is correct, then as a work-for-hire, the photo was published when it was given (or sold) by the photographer to the family, and the work is now PD. —Darkwind (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weirauch Family, namesake of Wirock, MN.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader states that the photo is previously unpublished. Therefore it is an unpublished work by an unknown author, and the copyright does not expire until 120 years from the date of creation according to the Hirtle chart. Since the image was created in 1910, the copyright expires in 2030. Dianna (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The description states that it is a studio photo, i.e. a work for hire. The photographer obviously took this photo as part of his work for a photography company, so the copyright expires 120 years after the photo was taken. The copyright expires in 2031 (not 2030) per s:Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works/Articles 1 to 21#Article 7 (5). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This remark has been copied from my user talk: The photo referenced was found in an archive and scanned. It is also on the Mn Historical Society's site where it is listed as belonging to Murray County Historical Society. The link is included on the Wikipedia page where it is used. It was taken in 1910, and I'm pretty sure it is safely in the public domain. -- Ray Lowry Ray Lowry 16:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC) -- Dianna (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This may be a dumb question, but what was the definition of "published" in 1910? If this was a studio photograph, when was it not "published" the moment the studio gave it to their client, meaning the copyright expired long ago? The moment it was offered for sale to their client, I believe that was considered "published". --B (talk) 15:16, 6 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: Kept NtheP (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:USAF TACP in Afghanistan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The files has been templated as PD-US Army, but the Flickr license shows an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license, which is not a compatible license with hosting the file on this wiki. Dianna (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All images by the United States government are in the public domain. The uploader is "U.S. Department of Defense Current Photos." They likely marked the license wrong on flickr, unless suddenly US Gov photos aren't in the public domain anymore. Cheers, —  dain- talk   02:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I too oppose the deletion on the grounds above. Perhaps the uploading individual didn't place the right copyright tag on the image, or is unaware of copyright policy of Department of Defense generated images.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs far as I know, images by US Government are PD, regardless of what the Flickr license says. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both the description on Flickr and the EXIF make it clear that this was made by the US government. According to 17 U.S.C. 105, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government." When uploading free images from Flickr, please make sure that you upload the original image. In this case, you uploaded a thumbnail (1,024 × 683 pixels) and not the full-size image (5,616 × 3,744 pixels). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Kept, because the licensing situation is unambiguous. Someone else close this please, since I've never closed something here before. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 14 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulucami 2.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulucami 3.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:John F. Kennedy Convocation Address at Boston College.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Insufficient sourcing information to determine copyright status. Uploader claims that it's a "White House Photo," but provides no source link.. In fact, the uploader actually uploaded the image from a file on his computer. Could just as easily be a press photo, instead of WH photo. I was unable to locate the image in any of the JFK library websites. GrapedApe (talk) 12:40, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Created before 1923, but apparently unpublished and taken from a photo album recently. Unpublished photographs are not public domain. Note that other files on the same article, also uploaded by the same editor, have the same problem, but have already been transferred to Commons so the copyright violation is now there instead of here (see e.g. [1]). Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works is the relevant policy. Fram (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) See the distinction between "general publication" and "limited publication" here. Only "general publication" is relevant for ((PD-1923)) and ((PD-US-no notice)). What you are describing might be "limited publication", if you mean that copies of the photo only were offered to the photographer and to the people on the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, unpublished here means "limited publication", not that it was a negative-only until now. Isn't that what is usually meant when people say that a photograph is "unpublished"? That it hasn't been made available to a wider audience by some form of mass reproduction (newspaper, book, serigraphy, whatever)? Fram (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • see Publication Under 1976 Act, the distinction you make here is no longer relevant since then, and this example can accurately be described as "unpublished". Fram (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to this but failed to notice that the comment was removed during the edit conflict. Without any information to the contrary, I think that this photo shall be treated as protected for 120 years since creation. Since it is less than 120 years old, the photo shall be assumed to be protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see. Fair enough! Fram (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the license to "fair use" now that the distinction has been explained, thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this image has no chance of passing WP:NFCC#8, it is now up for deletion at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:46, 5 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 F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Same as File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg above; picture is pre-1923, but seems to be unpublished until now, so falls under the "unpublished works" copyright which only starts at publication basically. Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the license to "fair use" now that the distinction has been explained, thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:57, 30 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⚡ 18:13, 30 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keir-Collection-Quran-Bukhara-1545.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a 3D photo of a book, so ((PD-Art)) doesn't apply. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This way of taking pictures of open Qurans (or more generally medieval manuscripts) is common on wikipedia and commons. In the article on Quran, there is this image of an open Quran from the British Museum File:IslamicGalleryBritishMuseum3.jpg. It has been in that high profile article for 2 1/2 years and after its transfer to commons is used in multiple articles on the Quran. Mathsci (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:IslamicGalleryBritishMuseum3.jpg has permission from the photographer whereas this image doesn't have permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are 2 possibilities. I will contact the photographer Rafik on flickr to request a slight change in the CC license to attribution-sharealike (that will take a little while). If that fails, the book on the Keir Collection contains a flat 2-D image of the same pages which can be scanned and uploaded. It will not be of the same quality as this image (in particular the resolution and the gold leaf). Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now superseded by File:Kier-Koran-1545.jpeg, a scanned 2-D image from the book. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 30 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keir-Collection-Andalusian-Morrocan-Quran-1300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a 3D photo of a book, so ((PD-Art)) doesn't apply. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This way of taking pictures of open Qurans (or more generally medieval manuscripts) is common on wikipedia and commons. In the article on Quran, there is this image of an open Quran from the British Museum File:IslamicGalleryBritishMuseum3.jpg. It has been in that high profile article for 2 1/2 years and after its transfer to commons is used in multiple articles on the Quran. Mathsci (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:IslamicGalleryBritishMuseum3.jpg has permission from the photographer whereas this image doesn't have permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are 2 possibilities. I will contact the photographer Rafik on flickr to request a slight change in the CC license to attribution-sharealike (that will take a little while). If that fails, the book on the Keir Collection contains a flat 2-D image of the same pages which can be scanned and uploaded. It will not be of the same quality as this image (in particular the resolution and the gold leaf). Mathsci (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now superseded by File:Keir-Koran-1300.jpeg, a scanned 2-D image from the book. Mathsci (talk) 15:43, 30 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 - I will fix the tag --B (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Self license seems highly unlikely given the 1912 date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a postcard from 1912? If so, then ((PD-1923)) applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per http://this.bigstereo.net/2009/11/20/ali-love-luca-c-brigante/ this doesn't seem to be a photo taken by the uploader. The other site has a somewhat smaller but much earlier copy of the image. Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:EJ performing in 2012.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The other files by this uploader seem to have copyright issues, so this file might also have copyright issues. Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 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 as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Cena Vs CM Punk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Too recent for PD-US -(2011) date Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:26, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joke small 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Text says it's a screenshot,but there is no evidence given that uploader is the director or producer of the film. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:27, 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) 00:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Judge-travers-humphreys.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright in a 1928 work would be with the publisher (stated) surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the copyright holder is more likely the photographer's heirs. British post-1925 photo, so protected for 95 years since publication in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• if the image was taken at the behest of the subject who then made it available to the publisher, as often happened then, and the photographer is unknown, as is the case with this image, then it is an historic image of a deceased person, surely?
• 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⚡ 22:14, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kent-thoroughfare.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This item was not prepared by the Federal Govt. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimmy Hendrix.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Although I am prepared to accept good faith if the user confirms they are old enough, I have reason to be skeptical about this being a self created image of the uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellagiri leopard.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence presented to suggest this a UK Government image, and an image in a 1957 UK publication would still be copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:49, 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 Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:RMS Carinthia.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed as both CC-BY-SA and Non-free, It can't be both and a 1928 postcard photo is not automatically out of copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ((PD-old-70)) does not necessarily mean that it is free in the Wikipedia sense, although it is better to use ((Non-free Old-70)) if it is unfree in the Wikipedia sense. Also, there is no evidence that ((PD-old-70)) or the CC licence are correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's no valid claim for fair use, as the article already includes a freely available PD image. -- Dianna (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader is still active. I have asked him/her to check and see if there is a copyright notice on the original post card. --B (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's not enough information as to authorship to determine whether this image is out of copyright in the United States, and since there's a free image already in the article we can't reasonably convert to fair use. Also, uploader retired about 2 days after B's question. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:19, 18 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal-Ballet-Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Whilst the replica may be the uploaders, work,I'm not aware of the original being released under a 'free' license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:54, 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. The screenshot does appear to be freely licensed. The argument of being unencyclopedic should be taken to FfD. —Darkwind (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viewmax screen shot.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is clerly a software screenshot Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graphical Environment Manager says ((GPL))^{[citation needed]}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• a) Digital Research's GEM and ViewMAX (a derivative of GEM) were released under the open-source license GPL by Caldera UK Ltd. in 1997, therefore any derivative works (including screenshots) are clearly under the GPL as well. The sources can still be downloaded here: http://www.deltasoft.com/downloads-gemworld.htm
  • Actually, while GEM and ViewMAX sources were already released by Caldera UK Ltd in 1997, the files downloabable under the above mentioned link are from a more complete later distribution in 1999 by Caldera Thin Clients, Inc.. Caldera obtained the rights on the remaining Digital Research assets, including GEM and ViewMAX, from Novell on 1996-07-23. Here's the header contained in the various source files (including the historical Digital Research copyright left in for historical correctness):

;-----------------------------------------------------------------------;
;       Copyright 1999, Caldera Thin Clients, Inc.                      ;
;       This software is licenced under the GNU Public License.         ;
;       Please see LICENSE.TXT for further information.                 ;
;                                                                       ;
;                  Historical Copyright                                 ;
;	Copyright (C) 1976-1992 Digital Research Inc. All rights	;
;	reserved. The Software Code contained in this listing is	;
;	proprietary to Digital Research Inc., Monterey,			;
;	California, and is covered by U.S. and other copyright		;
;	protection. Unauthorized copying, adaption, distribution,	;
;	use or display is prohibited and may be subject to civil	;
;	and criminal penalties. Disclosure to others is			;
;	prohibited. For the terms and conditions of software use,	;
;	refer to the appropriate Digital Research Licence		;
;	Agreement.							;
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------;

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

b) Screenshots even of copyrighted software are not normally copyrighted, unless they display artwork which would be copyrighted.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as to subpoint b, I think what you're driving at is whether this passes a threshold of creativity. That's debatable. Separate and related question: you said that this screenshot is actually of a version of the product released under a proprietary license. Is it sufficiently different from the GPL version that a screenshot of the latter is a different creative work than a screenshot of the former? In other words, does this particular screen look substantially the same as what it looked like in the free version such that if we could find and install a copy of the GPL software, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference? --B (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, B.

b) Yes, a screenshot showing a sketch, logo, photo, or (copyrightable) text might be copyrighted as well (depending on threshold), but a screenshot just showing some system messages or filenames certainly is not.

c) No, ViewMax once was commercial software, but that's long ago. Caldera, who obtained the rights to the software in 1996, released the sources of some of the older and no longer maintained Digital Research products under the GPL (LICENSE.TXT). ViewMax/2 and ViewMax/3 were among them. The file clearly shows a screenshot of ViewMax/3 with possibly a user-modified color-profile - at least I cannot remember any of the default color-profiles this ugly in the real product, but perhaps this was a high-contrast profile for visually impaired people or to be used with some early LCD monitors, I don't know. Other than the strange color profile there's no difference. Therefore this is clearly covered by the GPL. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, though more under a FfD-type argument that it's unencyclopedic because of the screwed up color palette, with the copyright concerns being persuasive. If ViewMax/3 can be screenshotted under the GPL, then let's do so and be done with it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:32, 18 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:MiFi MF230 by P1 (Packet One Networks).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I think this is packaging artwork, user image, but derivative of packaging. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:46, 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: no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:OS X Mountain Lion kernel panic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a screenshot, although I am wlling to be convinced it's not original enough. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This screenshot either does not contain copyright-eligible parts or visuals of copyrighted software, or the author has released it under a free license, and as such follows the licensing guidelines for screenshots of Wikimedia Commons.

Free software license: Licensed under the Apple Public Source License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/. Copyright © 2013 Apple Inc. Optakeover^(Talk) 07:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of quality issues more than copyright concerns, though these should still be persuasive. The creativity of the phrasing is arguable, as may be the translations, to the point that I would argue something along the lines of COM:PRP. I'm not convinced by Commons' template; I don't see any evidence on in the template or license text that the entirety of Mac OS and all media therein would be covered by that license, rather than whatever proprietary license Mac OS is normally distributed under. As to the sufficiency of the APSL license, I just don't know. It seems more easily terminable by original copyright owner than either CC-BY-SA or GFDL. I don't know if that's fatal, but it's concerning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:46, 18 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: not deleted - works of the state of Florida are public domain - see ((PD-FLGov)). A quick google of Cape Coral Community Redevelopment Agency shows that they are an official government entity. --B (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cape Coral CRA Boundary Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not federal Government, and not all US State level bodies release under 'free' licenses Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:50, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ada County Sheriff's Office Patch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Law enforcment patch, but I'm unaware of Idaho being a 'free' license state. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:53, 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: Closing based on uploader's statement below. I will ask him to submit a statement of permission to OTRS. --B (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dee Glen Smith Spectrum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears at lots of other places on the internet (e.g. http://provoaggie.deviantart.com/art/Spectrum-Utah-State-Aggies-310622364), but only in smaller resolution as far as I can see. Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I took the photo myself and I've shared it other places online including DeviantArt and USUFans. I've given open permission for anyone to use it. Jasonlesliewright (talk) 23:33, 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No indication Uploader is - Arava Power Company Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The image is on display at this website: http://eng.greenpanel.co.il/function.printf/ -- Dianna (talk) 01:34, 27 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 DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arid Agriculture University.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Presence of watermark in image, makes me doubtful about this image being a self-upload as claimed.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: here is an online source that pre-dates the upload by over a year (click on the pic to see the full image). -- Dianna (talk) 00:04, 30 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.