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: Tagged as non-free -- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Brainrock1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: modern US sculpture does not have freedom of panorama permission, so this derivative work is under copyright and cannot be PD per the uploader's claim. ww2censor ( talk) 04:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• One of these two images, this one and the one below, could be retained as non-free (to illustrate the artist's work, which is given as a valid use of non-free content at WP:NFCI item 7). Of the two, I think I'd prefer this one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Have changed this to {{ Non-free 3D art}} and added non-free content rationale (could probably be improved). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• the prose In 2009 Clancy painted a large rock into a pink brain, dubbed The Brain Rock does not constitute critical commentary per the claim made in the rationale, "WP:NFCI, point 7". IMHO, it needs more than that for the FURG to be acceptable. ww2censor ( talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I would say so too, but most of Wikipedia disagrees with us. "Critical commentary" is sorely lacking for 99% of non-free images which supposedly require it. I've no problem with this being deleted, but when the evidence on the ground is so contrary to our understanding this can't easily be categorised as "other crap exists". Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:21, 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Delete: modern US sculpture does not have freedom of panorama permission, so this derivative work is under copyright and cannot be PD per the uploader's claim. ww2censor ( talk) 04:28, 5 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 (withdrawn). Magog the Ogre ( talk) 01:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Earhart.electra.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unless I'm mistaken, this indicates that the image was first published in 2002. As the author appears to be unknown (not credited in the photo), it will not be copyright free until 2058 according to the copyright chart (or even if the author were known, 2048). Magog the Ogre ( talk) 04:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The files that were mentioned in 2002 were poems, maps and other materials. The main Purdue Collection of Earhart material included the photographs owned by the Putnam family was donated by George Putnam and indicates the original publishing date of all material. The Purdue University Libraries provides copies of digitized content for non-commercial scholarly research and education purposes. The Purdue Libraries physically holds the materials as part of its collections. The photograph in question is a 1930s era photograph with copyright to Purdue University via George Putnam, the digital image is merely a copy. Bzuk ( talk) 07:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC). reply

  Can we get more information about when Mr. Putnam a) first published the photograph, and b) donated it to Purdue? Unfortunately, the link on the Earhart photographs is down. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

  • The George Putnam Collection of photographs and related material from his wife was donated in 1940. The collection you are referring to that was later donated in 2002 was from Sally Putnam Chapman (George Putnam’s granddaughter), and mainly consisted of poems, maps and miscellaneous print material. The later donation made big headlines at the time as it did represent a new source of material on Earhart. See: Guide to the Collection. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC). reply
• In that case, I've done in exhaustive search of the artwork/photograph copyright renewals from 1957-68 [1], and I see nothing under Amelia, Earhart, George, Purdue, or Putnam. I believe this is {{ PD-US-not renewed}}, but will leave the conversation up just in case someone else has something to contribute that I'm missing. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 23:49, 5 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 ⚡ 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Asan1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• I doubt the uploader created this image from scratch with no inspiration from another photo. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 06:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 19:45, 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 Angusmclellan ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• "Phyisical copy Obtained from SNDP Office," - not self created. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 06:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree.-- ARTEST4ECHO ^{( talk| contribs)} 19:46, 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Mayilppeeli thookkam.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader with serial copyright violations; this does not appear to be self-created. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 06:20, 5 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 ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Kum1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• uploader with serial cv's (see above); odd resolution for self-taken photo, no metadata. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 06:21, 5 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 Angusmclellan ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Interior Scurfield Hall.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image of the exactly the same size appears at http://oursesame.blogspot.com/2008/04/haskayne-mba-lounge.htm from 2008 so unlikely the work of the uploader who has history of uploading copyrighted images from the internet MilborneOne ( talk) 12:10, 5 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 ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:The Pendulum - Before The Duel (small).JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Alexander Fiske-Harrison headshot1.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Miura family.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs)

• These images are all claimed as PD via {{ PD-self}}, however based on users other uploads and their user name it appears as if they are the subject of these photos as well. File:Alexander Fiske-Harrison headshot1.JPG was set to be deleted but was twice denied because the "Uploader claims to be the source with a PD-self tag" and "There's such a thing as a web cam; it's quite possible for the uploader to have created this". Taking a broad leap of good faith one could argue File:Miura family.JPG and File:The Pendulum - Before The Duel (small).JPG were also taken by the subject with their webcam as well. Call me a doubting Thomas but I personally do not feel any of these are taken by the uploader/subject with a webcam. Just a glance at some of the deleted images there was File:Cayetano-portrait.jpg which was sourced to "my computer" and credited to "Nicolas Haro". (Ironically File:Best cape April'09.jpg has an permissions OTRS, presumed to be from "Nicolas Haro") and File:Mark rowlands narrowweb 300x447.jpg, which was credited to "Mark Rowlands". Soundvisions1 ( talk) 16:55, 5 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 ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:19 no. Azimpur Road.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to have been scanned from a book or journal, and in this context the claim of being in the public domain seems doubtful. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete: There is no clear source listed. I am sure the uploader felt they were the "source" if they made this photocopy or scan but for Wikipedia "Source" needs to be where/what/who a media file came from. It this from a book? A flyer? A magazine? Who took the original photo that is used on the photocopy/scan or a paper/book/flyer? Soundvisions1 ( talk) 18:32, 5 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 ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:2007 Sports Meet.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

File:2007 Sports Day.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs)

File:2007 New Year Celebrations.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs)

File:2007 Little Friends.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs)

(See also: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 5#File:DS vs Mahanama 2008.jpg)

• To understand these images one has to look at the users uploaders history and also look at their talk page. The user uploaded all images using a {{ PD-self}} tag, however they also manually added text depending on the images. Some were marked "used by Permission" and some were marked as fair use. First these are all conflicted licenses. Some were deleted because of this: File:Chess2007.jpg, File:Cricket Tour India 2008.jpg, File:Cricket Tour India 2008.jpg and File:Cricket Tour India 2008.jpg as a few examples. A look at the users talk page helps to learn a few things as well. The user was placing copyrighted text into articles and a standard warning template was placed on the users page suggesting a note be placed on the source website that said text was available for re-use under the GFDL or released into the public domain. This was done on January 25, 2008. On the same day the uploader noted that "Copyright Permission for WikiMedia" had been stated on the source website. It is important to note at this time is was based on what a generic message template had said and was placed in regards to text, not images. Now is where it gets a bit more complicated. As all of the image uploads claimed {{ PD-self}} it implies the uploader actually is the copyright holder, depsite any other website information. However in Febraury 2008 both File:Chess2007.jpg and File:Black n Gold.jpg were tagged for lacking a FUR. The uploader commented on both that "Image was taken from the online edition of the news paper, its released to the public by the news paper company for fair use." This indicates not all image are really {{ PD-self}}. NOw you need to jump forward to July 28, 2008 - Six images were uploaded, each one using a "self" license and each one linking to the "new" terms of use on the website: Terms of Use. Every one of those 6 images was speedied via I3/F3 - Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission."

• Now, and the reason this is a bit long, I cam across one image which has the manually written summary that said it was "used with permission", I tagged it with I3/F3. In looking over the other uploads I discovered all of the above, so I tagged other images as such. They were all declined because the {{ PD-self}} tag gave permission and the Terms of Use gave permission. It is unfortunate the speedies were declined without any real research on the issue. As stated already above there are conflicting licenses. And further the actual source website sates "All rights reserved" on every single page, image, artwork and even the Terms of Use is conflicted in that it is explicit that You may not copy (other than a copy for personal use), modify, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, transfer, resell, or republish any of the Contents of this Website without the prior written consent of Vidura College - Colombo, but than states Content along with its images for re-use is permitted for WikiMedia under the GFDL or released into the public domain license. (Important to note the exact phrase under the GFDL or released into the public domain is used - directly cut and and pasted form the generic message about copyrighted text use, right down to the italics.) The three main issues now are 1: It is explicit in that WikiMedia (Not Wikipedia) has permission to use; 2: Nobody else *except* WikiMedia has permission for use under those terms; and 3: Not one other page on the entire website states the same thing. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 18:10, 5 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 ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Bob Farrell.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image was first uploaded to Commons: commons:File:BobFarrell.jpg.jpg, renamed to commons:File:Bob Farrell.jpg. The uploader however not added a free license to it, nor did the uploader ever describe under what license he wants to publish his work, neither commons:Special:Contributions/Knowledgesalt nor Special:Contributions/Knowledgesalt contain any licene grant for this file. Its not possible to grab media without licenses from Commons and upload them to en.wp with a license claim. The license must come voluntarily from the copyright holder, not someone else. -- Martin H. ( talk) 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

The uploader made a total of 6 other edits before leaving, all Washington-state related. Uploader was likely unaware of licensing procedures, as we all are when we start. Photo has this year camera-dated information nested in. This is the work of the uploader, it was deleted from Commons as lacking a proper license. The license is what the uploader would have put had they understood Wikipedia and stayed longer. Assume good faith about the image, or failing that, find a better license. This is a good image, taken with permission, all the earmarks are there. Don't make this a procedural delete, nothing is fishy here.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 22:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Without any license this image becomes a copyvio. Its use here is the same as grabbing an image from a website and laying claim to it. I concur with what Martin says here and at Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Bob Farrell.jpg. It may have been a mistake by the uploader but nobody can (legally) put a license on this except the photographer and/or copyright holder. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Sorry. Chris asked me to come and take a look at this but, unless the uploader has explicitly released this under a free license at some point, I'm afraid it has to go. J Milburn ( talk) 01:02, 6 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 ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Stephanie McKay edit.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Stephanie mckay portrait.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs)

• Despite the "self" tag the original upload information for the deleted version(s) of this all say "I work as the artists manager and have been granted permission by the ar" (see File:Stephanie McKay.jpg which was speedied I3/F3) File:Stephanie mckay portrait.jpg is a colorized version. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 22:58, 5 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 ⚡ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Tyler4.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

File:4munyiu.png ( delete | talk | history | logs)

• Unused image. No real source or description given. Despite the {{ PD-self}} tag on this the users other uploads also used a "self" tag but came from other photographers. The logo is also marked as {{ PD-Self}} but is unused. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 23:32, 5 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.