The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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; solution offered. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Parlelogo1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a logo, unlikely that the uploader holds the rights. Lәo_{( βǃʘʘɱ)} 03:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

  it is being used in an article for identification of the product in question. Give it an appropriate fair use license.-- Crossmr ( talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep If the baby is not part of the logo, crop it out and relabel as {{ pd-textlogo}} & {{ trademark}}. Otherwise, do as crossmr suggests. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment image was deleted despite this discussion; request made for restoration in pursuit of this discussion. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 04:38, 19 February 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 image 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:OpenCRG countryRoad GoogleMap.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not sure if screenshot of a non-commercial open source project using Google Maps API in a browser may be placed on Wikipedia (Gallery on OpenCRG) without Google Maps agreement. Hhelmich ( talk) 09:26, 9 February 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 image 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. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Michael cherney wanted by interpol.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image uploaded by user with rationale that it is in the public domain because it has been published on the Internet. Source website (Interpol!) nonetheless states Copyright INTERPOL 2009. All rights reserved. What I think has happened is the uploader, like many users, believes that because something is published on the web that means it's in the public domain. Arctic Night 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Interpol images are not necessarily public domain unless they were PD before being given to Interpol by cooperating governments that produce default-PD images (like the US). — BQZip01 —  ^talk 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment Arrest warrant issued by Spanish police, so I would guess that these pictures were taken in Spain. From a quick search on the web, I can't find any evidence to suggest default PD like the US. I may be wrong though! Arctic Night 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep-Picture needs a fair use rational and replacing in the article not in the info box (BLP) but in a lower section specifically about the issue. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - however, I think you would find it difficult to come up with a fair use rationale for this photo. Using a set of three Interpol-released mugshots as the primary identification for the subject of the article seems a little over the line... Arctic Night 08:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• - It is common on articles to insert a fair use mugshot further down the article. The fact that it would be the only picture of him is by the by...But thinkng about it, your right, he is only wanted and not convicted of anything so it would be a bit excessive. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:09, 12 February 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 image 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) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• reason this image is probably non-free Yekrats ( talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep No reason given that the image is nonfree. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 04:39, 19 February 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 image 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) 00:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• No FOP in US for art. MGA73 ( talk) 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep It should be noted that this image is of some noteriety and that it has since been destroyed. This should be reflected in a FUR. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 19:32, 9 February 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 image 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. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Agar Rodney Adamson.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Please see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_25#File:Agar_Rodney_Adamson.jpg, the latter points of which I was unable to respond to. I have copied it below.

New, extended rationale with explanation: This file was produced in Canada. It is undoubtedly public domain in Canada. However, this is not equivalent to being public domain in the United States, for reasons I shall give in a moment. Now, it just so happens that since the file was not public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996, its copyright in the United States was renewed, and thus, it is still copyright in the US. As the servers are in the US, this file is thus hosted illegally and must be deleted.

Now, to respond to the section "By the Berne Act, we are to respect each country's copyright laws..." Yes, the Act did make provision so that this scenario would never come about; they called it the rule of the shorter term. However, unfortunately for us, the US explicitly opted out, saying that they ought to pass their own law. No such law emulating the rule of the shorter term has ever been passed in the United States. Thus, a file can simultaneously be out of copyright in Canada (or any other country) but in copyright in the US. This is one such file.

I hope that clarifies matters. - Jarry1250  ^{Humorous? Discuss.} 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC) - Jarry1250  ^{Humorous? Discuss.} 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep As previous + the Berne treaty states that we recognize other PD images as PD images. They might claim copyright in the US (which you've provided no evidence to show; where was the copyright renewed?), but the fact remains that the image is PD. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding the "where was copyright renewed", see the Act to which TheDJ alludes: CTEA. Rather, unfortunately, whereas we personally might "recognize other PD images as PD images", the United States does not. - Jarry1250  ^{Humorous? Discuss.} 21:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the lack of missing "rule of shorter term in the US". To quote "When the United States joined the Berne Convention, Congress explicitly declared that the treaty was not self-executing in the United States". This means that it does not supersede US law, and that any part of the Berne convention needs to be passed as a federal law in order to become active. Specifically, the US did not implement a " rule of shorter term" as advised by the Berne convention. Since the servers are hosted in the US, we need to comply by US law. The copyright of this item expired in Canada in 2004. But since it was not in the public domain per 1996, its copyright (claimed or not, because since Berne adaptation copyright is bestowed automatically upon any creative creation) has not yet expired in the United states (See also the Hirtle chart for when things become PD in the US). This is an unfortunate problem and something the US should really solve, but we cannot pass by laws that we think are stupid. See also a recent blogpost of User:Durova. We can all thank Mickey Mouse. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is why we have a loose rule of thumb for Canadian images on Wikipedia and on the Commons -- pre-1946 is generally okay, 1946 and afterwards is generally problematic. As a 1953 image, this file is PD in Canada, but not in the U.S. For reasons already set out in some detail, the Berne convention does not apply here. I agree that the situation is somewhat ridiculous, and I believe that Wikipedia needs to reconsider its stance on the applicability of U.S. copyright laws to all non-U.S. images; in the meantime, however, this issue seems clear-cut. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 13:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
  • See also http://www. petitiononline.com/wikirrst/ a petition for the rule of shorter term and the old campaign regarding this on meta. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 February 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 image 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: Wrong Venue; the file is located on the Wikimedia Commons. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:QFN part.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• seems to originate from page 2 of http://www.freescale.com/files/analog/doc/app_note/AN1902.pdf Henk.muller ( talk) 22:42, 9 February 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.