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. After all, you take me at my word that the photos that I upload and claim as my own work are in fact my own work without making me go through a hundred hoops. Magog the Ogre makes a good point. I don't see why this family photo should be any different. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 06:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:ArchieForbes1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• The licensing information is not consistent - this is a photo of the uploader's grandparents taken in the 1960's - but he claims that he took the picture; the source is given as the family collection and the permission given is "family" - which is not consistent with him having taken the picture. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 08:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment - if the uploader is an heir, and states the heirs release it under public domain, then that's probably good enough legally. I'm not sure we need a release from every single family heir if one speaks on their behalf. I'm reticent to delete a perfectly good free image of a source for which we will never have a free image in the future. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 02:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply
• Also, even if it is necessary legally to absolutely ensure PD status, I'm all for using OTRS in most situations, but I'm not sure we should be creating herculean hurtles for content providers. There comes a point when we just assume good faith and then move to delete only when other heirs come around and lay claim to the copyright. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 02:24, 8 November 2011 (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. No reason not to take uploader at their word, and even if this was taken professionally, likely PD on account of age and lack of copyright notice. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 06:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:DLoxton7.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This has recently been deleted from Commons for licensing issues. The description says "My Uncle, David Loxton with his wife Pam at their Wedding in 1968. From our Family Photograph Collection" The uploader claims to have created the picture which is most unlikely. Permission from the family is not consitent with the uploader creating it. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 11:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Question - where was it deleted on Commons? Magog the Ogre ( talk) 02:17, 8 November 2011 (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. If I'm reading the Crown copyright article correctly, this would appear to have passed out of copyright in the last few years. So most likely PD-old, and closing as much. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 06:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:BillLoxton2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader claims to be the author of this photo - which he says was of his grandfather in the 1950s - this claim seems unlikely. It also looks an official RAF picture. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 11:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Probably a studio image - No reason why it (or a smaller version) cant be used as non-free with an appropriate rationale. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:19, 6 November 2011 (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 ⚡ 04:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Dumisani Khumalo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo from some United Nations ceremony. See for example http://treaties.un.org/Pages/PhotoList.aspx and select a random country for similar photos. The uploader produced nothing but copyright violations on this project, certainly not own work. Martin H. ( talk) 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC) reply

My fault: Just select South Africa, its the last photo in that selection. Photo is stolen from that United Nations website. -- Martin H. ( talk) 22:50, 24 October 2011 (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.