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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Valancia Town Location Map.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Was tagged previously for Category:Possibly unfree files from 2009 April 25 but was never listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 25. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:13, 25 January 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Ghetto0001.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Was tagged previously for Category:Possibly unfree files but was never listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:21, 25 January 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:LSTs 794 796 843 and 1040.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Was listed previously on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 18 but was never resolved. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:21, 25 January 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:LST-794.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Was listed previously on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 18 but was never resolved. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:21, 25 January 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:LST-794 beached.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Was listed previously on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 December 18 but was never resolved. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:22, 25 January 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: Delete; deleted by After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:44, 25 January 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Ekeko-moderno.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per a comment here, the image seems to be from here and at the very least is questionable. It's only usage was this by the editor. Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:10, 25 January 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: Delete; deleted by Zscout370 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Byway.ogg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is obviously an audio clip taken from somewhere. I believe it is from the DVD "Treasure Within the Mountains (The Mountain Parkway). DVD. Gauley Productions, 2005" that User:SchoolcraftT has cited in Mountain Parkway Byway. Brian Powell ( talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • See User:SchoolcraftT's comment for PUF on the file Backway Routes.ogg for an explanation of where this file came from, a taped program called Mountain Parkway Talking Tour. See [1] for saved revision. Brian Powell ( talk) 22:53, 30 January 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: Delete; deleted by Zscout370 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Backway Routes.ogg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is obviously an audio clip taken from somewhere. I believe it is from the DVD "Treasure Within the Mountains (The Mountain Parkway). DVD. Gauley Productions, 2005" that User:SchoolcraftT has cited in Mountain Parkway Byway. Brian Powell ( talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Actualy it came form a audio cd caled the MOuntain Parkway Talking Tour, Which I have a copy of.

It's still a copyrighted work then. You cannot post it and you especially cannot claim to release it under Creative Commons. You can only Creative Commons license works you originally created yourself. Brian Powell ( talk) 16:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The DVD case dose not indiate that its copyrighted,and the cd is the same way,I've sent a e-mail to Dr Anderson to verrify. So utill I'm proven wrong the file shall not be delelete and that also appiles to the byway.ogg file.

By virtue of their creation under US copyright law, works are automatically copyrighted whether or not they are marked as such. Unless proven otherwise, the default assumption is that a work is copyright and cannot be used. Even if you have permission to use the works here, that doesn't mean you can relicense them under Creative Commons. Only the copyright owner can do that. Brian Powell ( talk) 17:24, 25 January 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:53185tormap.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• From May 1985, without explanation of why this is PD. - Jarry1250  ^{Humorous? Discuss.} 17:54, 25 January 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) 00:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• As I understand Canadian copyright law, copyright would have been restored in the 1999 act, since this was published in 1953 according to the source provided. - Jarry1250  ^{Humorous? Discuss.} 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know where you got that information from, but the copyright has expired as it has been more than 50 years since publication. NorthernThunder ( talk) 18:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Well, to look at it from a different angle: it was not out of copyright in the US in 1996, and is therefore still in copyright in the US (despite being PD in Canada). - Jarry1250  ^{Humorous? Discuss.} 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Why would a foreign image be under American copyright? NorthernThunder ( talk) 03:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Copyright is assessed on a country by country basis, and runs independently of country of origin in the main. Though there are a number of international treaties to help with this, the most useful - the rule of the shorter term - the USa has not signed up to. Since enwp goes by US copyright law, and this image is still copyright in the US, it should be deleted. - Jarry1250  ^{Humorous? Discuss.} 14:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
          • "Copyright is assessed on a country by country basis, and runs independently of country of origin in the main." By the Berne Act, we are to respect each country's copyright laws. In this case, the image is PD in the country of origin. As such, it does not have any copyright protections to protect. To put it another way, taking a PD document from Canada into the US doesn't suddenly make it copyrighted.
• Keep Seems pretty clear that it is PD in Canada and, therefore, PD in the US. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 01:14, 6 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Speedy deletion as BLP violation. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Bashir Makhoul.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source indicates "I created this work entirely by myself out of an existing photograph." We need to know the copyright status of the "existing photograph" to evaluate whether this is a derivative work. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 20:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep As has been said very clearly in the information section, this is an "artist's impression" which has been uploaded, and not a real photograph. With regards to copyright for non-free images, under UK law, as soon as an image is visually modified, then copyright no longer applies to the original holder and passes onto the artist who has created it, in this case John Newtown. Trou-de-memoire ( talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete Are we missing the deleter's rationale? Do we even need one? I think not. "With regards to copyright for non-free images, under UK law, as soon as an image is visually modified, then copyright no longer applies to the original holder and passes onto the artist who has created it" - I don't know which legal textbook you're quoting, but this is, I'm afraid, a fundamental misunderstanding of UK law. To the contrary, the UK acknowledges derivative works as being granted a new copyright, which does not subsume the old one - they run in parallel. So this is a copyvio. - Jarry1250  ^{Humorous? Discuss.} 12:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Since this image is apparently distortive, (see [2] ) use of the image is a potential WP:BLP violation. It ought to be deleted on those grounds even if the copyright question could be cleared (which is doubtful) ++ Lar: t/ c 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete - dubious license aside, it's a very obvious shoop, and closeup analysis corroborates this. WP:BLP applies to images, too - Alison ^❤ 06:42, 1 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:GeorginaWilcock2344x2832.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Was listed previously on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2008 August 18 but was never resolved. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete I see no evidence that it is not copyrighted. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 01:22, 6 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Tahir Shah.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• On a previous version of this image (which the uploader made a few of) he noted "Got perrmission from tahir Shah, as the picture is from his web site. Any queries, wrote to mikegooderson@mac.com" - I think the licence is incorrect and I've searched but cannot find any OTRS permission email Peripitus (Talk) 23:13, 25 January 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.