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 After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Apmciblaetc123321gdghdurufhfju.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• if this is the legit intertitle from the show, the uploader would not be (c) holder; if not, no need to keep non-official user-created art: no source Skier Dude ( talk 04:05, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:HMCSHalifax3.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• As of now, http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronancantwell/4164809946/ shows the license for this picture to be CC-BY-NC-ND. Since it was never reviewed, there is no way to know if the license was ever the CC-BY-SA claimed here. Not free enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:30, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Black DS 1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possibly unfree, with no encyclopedic usage. See File:Black DS.jpg and File:Black DS Lite 1.jpg. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 11:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Probably unfree and orphaned.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 15:14, 1 November 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:HMS Brazen monument.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source page http://www.publicsculpturesofsussex.co.uk/object?id=248#photographs shows the license for this image as CC-BY-NC-SA rather than CC-BY-SA. Not free enough and replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• I have no idea of the difference between the two licenses. If you have access to a freer replacement feel free to make the replacement. I have no particular commitment to the image in question. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 13:55, 18 October 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 - de minimis. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Fred Salvador Athletic Field.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not enough information to verify the copyright status of that logo. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 12:39, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Wrist piercings.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source Flickr page - http://www.flickr.com/photos/graphicward/2492612811/ - currently shows the license as CC-BY-NC-ND. While it is possible that the uploader on Flickr changed the license from CC-BY, we can be sure that it was never licensed under a CC-BY-3.0 license as shown here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Piece of Me Circus Tour.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source Flickr page - http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamiesworld/3358185003/ - currently shows license as CC-BY-NC-SA. While it is at least possible that it was once licensed CC-BY-2.0, we can be sure that it was never licensed CC-BY-3.0 as claimed here. Error raises doubts as to whether this image was ever free enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:57, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Matthew Mcconaughey(Marshall football).jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source Flickr page - http://www.flickr.com/photos/40770629@N04/3752328939/ - shows license as all rights reserved. While this could always have been something different at the time that it was uploaded, it certainly wasn't CC-BY-3.0 as claimed here. It can be doubted whether this image was ever free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:00, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Source Flickr page - http://www.flickr.com/photos/12210885@N07/4053207480/ - shows all rights reserved. Uploader's rationale for PD licensing not clear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly "all rights reserved" thus not allowed on Wikipedia.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 15:17, 1 November 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 Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Puneet vashist1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image not found on Flickr (after cursory search), but since Flickr images are all rights reserved or some variant on CC-2.0, the claimed GFDL, CC-1.0, CC-2.5 and CC-3.0 cannot ever have been correct. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Flickr source page - http://www.flickr.com/photos/hellon_earth/173128161/ - shows license as all rights reserve and redirects licensing enquiries to Getty Images. In addition, Flickr images are never licensed CC-BY-SA-2.5 (rather CC-BY-SA-2.0). Reason to doubt whether this image was ever free, most unlikely to have ever been licensed as claimed here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly "all rights reserved" thus not allowed on Wikipedia.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 15:18, 1 November 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 Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Cursory search did not find this exact image on Flickr, but other related images are all licensed all rights reserved. In addition, we can be sure that the Flickr image page this came from never showed as CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. This raises some serious doubts as to whether this image was ever free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• My friend (Flickr user name jenniferhelen) shot this photo specifically to add to the Wikipedia entry for egg in the basket. She released all rights to the picture. What else is needed from her? Shamrox ( talk) 08:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I have given Shamrox detailed instructions on how to sent this threw the OTRS system on his Talk page.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 14:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Additional comment It's now been a week with no fix by Shamrox. Unless Shamrox fixes this image before the end of the 14-day period, this image should be deleted.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 12:58, 26 October 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 After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Taro1.PNG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as user-created, but almost certainly a screenshot of a copyrighted TV program. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 14:30, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:U1@Filmfare 2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Yuvan@filmfare02.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

File:U1@Filmfare-001.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image from a user with a long history of copyright misunderstanding; pixellated low-quality image suggests a scan from another source. No camera metadata or anything that would corroborate the claim this is user-created. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 14:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• NOTE: I've added two more images to this listing, as they are effectively the same. The presence of the same pose in an image here and the users insistence on providing an image for Yuvan Shankar Raja (e.g. the now deleted File:Yuvan@fitnessone.jpg, File:Yuvan@fitness1.jpg and commons:File:Yuvan@fitnessone.jpg) strongly indicates that these are non-free and unusable images. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete Clearly these are all photoshoped from the same image. I would suspect File:Yuvan@filmfare02.jpg is the original image. Additionally that image is "all rights reserved" per the (R) on the photo and therefore is not allowed on Wikipedia.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 15:21, 1 November 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: Withdrawn.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Christian in Pilgrim's Progress.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Says "Scanned from public domain material", so this image isn't {{ PD-self}}. Therefore source needs to be supplied. Until that time how do we know this is "Public Domain".-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 15:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Please see page 18 of this pdf link from Internet Archive: [1]. It is the same image that I scanned from a hard copy of the 1913 COPYRIGHT book. This is ten years before the cut off year of 1923! This book is public domain, and a scanned page is also public domain. If it needs changes in licensing, then specify the changes needed.-- Drboisclair ( talk) 04:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Rachael Robinson Elmer, the creator of this illustration, died in 1919 - see here - so that {{ PD-art-life-70}} is most appropriate here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Just to make it clear, when I tagged this image the entire image summary was "Scanned from public domain material drboisclair 23:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)" and then claimed a {{ pd-self}} claim. see None of the information above was available. However, now that a PD source and a correct tag has been supplied by Angusmclellan and Drboisclair, I see no reason not to withdraw the "Possibly unfree files" discussion.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 13:51, 19 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Canopy of Honour.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• I see no evidence that this images copyright is held by user:ProCivitate and not by The Birmingham Civic Society or the firm who designed or is designing this monument. -- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 16:02, 18 October 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 After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Caratula Anoche.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Caratula Las Mantenidas.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Caratula Infame.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Album cover copyrights are usually held by music company. -- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 18:20, 18 October 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 After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Audrey Hepburn Breakfast Tiffanys.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This appears to be a publicity shot or a film scene from Breakfast at Tiffanys. I doubt uploader hold copyright. -- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 18:26, 18 October 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 After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Ericofon ad.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a coprighted at by the "Ericofon" company -- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Given the history of this phone, we should assume that the advertising material wasn't first published in the USA. Doesn't seem to be any way that this could be in the public domain in Sweden as of now, so not PD in the US either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:28, 20 October 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 After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Tjf-inverted blue.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• corporate logo; no source; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk 19:29, 18 October 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 ⚡ 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• seems to be wrongly licensed, cf. http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/yellowsub/ Eva K.  ^{is evil} 20:16, 18 October 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.