The result of the discussion was: Delete - FASTILY 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, they did not agreed to use their naked images on Wikipedia. Using these images are immoral and may not fit for Fair Use. We shouldn't use these images. -- Sharouser ( talk) 05:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Like GermanJoe below, after conducting an exhaustive search, I have been unable to find any evidence copyright was renewed; I'm reasonably confident this is PD. Of course, if someone can prove otherwise, the file may be restored immediately. Also noting that the file has been transferred to Commons as File:Marguerite Higgins 483.jpg - FASTILY 05:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A cropped version of the same file appears at Commons under the same name and under a PD-US-not renewed claim. Does someone know how to verify that? GermanJoe? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This and the Commons file are almost exactly the same, just with a different brightness. The Commons file makes a clearer licence claim, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see File talk:SenateHouseExhibition.jpg. This file was uploaded as non-free, but the uploader claims it is a freely licensed image. Bringing this to FFD for further evaluation as a neutral party. Ə XPLICIT 23:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete - FASTILY 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, they did not agreed to use their naked images on Wikipedia. Using these images are immoral and may not fit for Fair Use. We shouldn't use these images. -- Sharouser ( talk) 05:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Like GermanJoe below, after conducting an exhaustive search, I have been unable to find any evidence copyright was renewed; I'm reasonably confident this is PD. Of course, if someone can prove otherwise, the file may be restored immediately. Also noting that the file has been transferred to Commons as File:Marguerite Higgins 483.jpg - FASTILY 05:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A cropped version of the same file appears at Commons under the same name and under a PD-US-not renewed claim. Does someone know how to verify that? GermanJoe? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This and the Commons file are almost exactly the same, just with a different brightness. The Commons file makes a clearer licence claim, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see File talk:SenateHouseExhibition.jpg. This file was uploaded as non-free, but the uploader claims it is a freely licensed image. Bringing this to FFD for further evaluation as a neutral party. Ə XPLICIT 23:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)