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 ⚡ 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Diana-Vickers-wikipedia.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks very much like a copyvio. Vickers has attracted copyvios before- two low resolution shots from different angles and probably different cameras were uploaded as the author's own work at the same concert. J Milburn ( talk) 00:09, 2 April 2010 (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 ⚡ 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

File:KIMO-L.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 00:43, 2 April 2010 (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 NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Lepiotahelveola.PNG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Fair use rational doesn't appear to be valid. Eeekster ( talk) 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Completely replaceable. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete there is an alternate version available here, so it was probably taken from some sort of mushroom website. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 April 2010 (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 ⚡ 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Homestar Runner.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• 2D art of some sort, possibly cropped. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 03:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Almost certainly copyright by the creators of the Homestar Runner web site; compare File:HomestarRunner Character.PNG. Decorating a user page is not fair use. Cnilep ( talk) 15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete The user had previously used the image Cnilep mentioned, but it was removed because it violates the non-free content criteria. This one is equally non-free. I don't believe the Brothers Chaps have released any Homestar Runner material under a free license. Reach Out to the Truth 17:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all of the above. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:22, 5 April 2010 (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 ⚡ 02:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Sam Newman Open-Palmed Point.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Licensed as PD-self, but the logo in the lower right corner suggests that it was captured from a television broadcast. I believe that makes the image copyright of the broadcaster, not the individual who made the screen capture. Cnilep ( talk) 15:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Deleteunused + nonfree=delete. Same fate for its exact duplcate File:Open_plamed_point.jpg. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 04:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete both this and File:Open plamed point.jpg: Clearly a television screenshot, from NBN Television in New South Wales, very likely of a Nine Network program between 1994 and the present. Australian works are copyright in both Australia and United States from moment of creation. According to Australian copyright law#Ownership of copyright (unsourced in article!), Australia does not require a copyright notice. -- Closeapple ( talk) 08:10, 6 April 2010 (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. Alexf ^(talk) 03:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Sunni Gummi Drinking Gummiberry Juice.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: uploader claims a free creative commons licence which is obviously false for a non-free cartoon image. ww2censor ( talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Provisional Delete Image is in an article with dubious notability (most of the article is ficiton too). While a FUR could be added, the article should be deleted anyway. I've been known to be wrong on a few occassions, so I say hold off until the article is deleted. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:19, 5 April 2010 (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. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Pennsylvania Avenue.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader Uncle Leo ( talk · contribs) has changed licensed tag from {{ GFDL-with-disclaimers}} to {{ puf}}, then removed the image from House numbering with the edit summary "took away an old photo I took. it shouldn't be too hard to find a better one." Not sure whether the uploader is the copyright holder trying to revoke GFDL, or uploader is something else is going on here. Picture is credited to "Nick Scribner" - the author's website on this description is no longer valid, but there are later uploads created to "Nick Scribner" with more recent website links, including a Flickr page at http://www.flickr.com/photos/scribner/ and a Bard College personal page at http://student.bard.edu/~ns999/ also. Neither seem to have this picture, at least under this name. Closeapple ( talk) 19:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Just because the page has changed doesn't mean the license is not valid. If it was ever released, it is perpetually released (it can't be changed). I don't see any tineye hits and, given the quality of the image, I see no reason to disbelieve the claims of the uploader. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • That's what I figured. Is there a standard procedure for this? Do we just revert the license-removing edit? Is there a warning template for users that attempt this with their own work? Is there a template for files or talk pages to alert others that someone may try to retroactively unlicense the work? -- Closeapple ( talk) 16:22, 11 April 2010 (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.