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 ⚡ 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Wallaceburg Museum Glass Blower 042.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• There's no freedom of panorama in the United States, so the statue and the background photo enjoy copyright protection. Dianna ( talk) 02:04, 12 January 2013 (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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Low at Duluth's Electric Fetus.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Description indicates the images were taken from a film. Eeekster ( talk) 02:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This edit made just after the file was nominated would seem to clarify that the images are not from a film. The note at the bottom of the file's page reads 'I still possess the negative (or slide film)' further indicates that the images were still photographs owned by the uploader. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 05:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is Kodak medium-format 120 film, not motion picture stock. By "a film," the uploader must have meant "a roll of film." Chick Bowen 18:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Chick, where did the uploader write "a film"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.179.123 ( talk) 23:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, there was no 'a,' I misread it. On the original upload, he or she wrote "two frames scanned from film of an early version of the indie band Low," and then later changed it, realizing it was ambiguous. Chick Bowen 00:23, 20 January 2013 (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 ⚡ 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

• There's no freedom of panorama in France, so the mural enjoys copyright protection. Dianna ( talk) 02:54, 12 January 2013 (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 ⚡ 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Ali Ashfaq Against Thailand U-23.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed as work of the uploader in the license tag description says: "A friend of mine posted on his profile in Facebook" Eeekster ( talk) 05:52, 12 January 2013 (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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. I have nominated the copy on the Commons for deletion. Dianna ( talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Logo Aliah University Kolkata.jpeg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• NickAang ( talk) 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete; logos of this type are normally covered by copyright protection, and the file is not in use. -- Dianna ( talk) 02:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I think what he did was that he improved this logo: File:Logo of aliah university Kolkata West Bengal India Asia.JPG.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 19:59, 16 January 2013 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Abu Faraj Al-Libbi.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader gives no information about a photo taken of an incarcerated terrorist, but claims it is his own work 68.50.128.91 ( talk) 16:24, 12 January 2013 (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 ⚡ 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Painting of Mount Mazama.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Although appearing on a site where most of the content is PD, this image is tagged as being courtesy of Crater Lake Natural History Association and the painter is Paul Rockwood. The image is also posted on Flickr by the Crater Lake Institute with all rights reserved. Rockwood died in 1972 and did work for the National Park Service but there is no indication that copyright passed to the NPS. NtheP ( talk) 19:27, 12 January 2013 (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: Permission verified. Information corrected to match actual copyright holder.

File:TI StreetCred Ad.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• If an "ad for StreetCred" as indicated by the description, then it is unlikely to actually be self-created work. VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep. Added proper author and revised description as this image is not an ad.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 14:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • ...which still doesn't provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder (in this case, probably StreetCred). We need a verifiable release in order to use the image. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

StreetCred is owned by Rocky Williform. Should an OTRS be better?-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Ah, I had missed that their was a release on the facebook page you linked to as the source. That should be sufficient--I'll read through it in depth later today to confirm. Now since this and the other photos were only uploaded to facebook today, it can't be the actual source you used so that should still be corrected -- were they emailed to you directly from Mr. Williform or what? The more honest you are, the sooner we can straighten out the licensing issues on this and the other photos. VernoWhitney ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Nope, he uploaded it today in his Facebook fanpage. And used it as a source. We couldn't find the right source (though he owned the former company and the photo), so I suggested for a bandaid solution.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 19:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Just focusing on the source issue right now (the release looks good given that he owned the company, I'm just trying to work out the best way to document it): as the image was uploaded here in October and to Facebook today, Facebook is obviously not the actual source. Where did you get the photo from? VernoWhitney ( talk) 20:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

He emailed them to me last October.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 03:52, 17 January 2013 (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 ⚡ 04:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Kinder Rocky Williform.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Kindergarten photo of an American unlikely to be own work of a Filipino editor. VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep. Added proper author.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 14:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • ...which still doesn't provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder (in this case, probably the kindergarten photographer). We need a verifiable release, or evidence that it is not copyrighted in order to use the image. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

This one too is a scan photo from Mr. Williform. Here is what he told me in his email: "Ok. The photographer was almost 35 years ago. There is a law that says when so much time has lapsed and the original photographer cannot be found then it is public use. I am the person in the photo and have owned it for almost 35 years so it means that I own it because the photographer cannot be found..."-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Renzoy16's claim about the law is false. If the photographer is unknown and the work is unpublished, it is considered to be under copyright for 120 years after creation, according to the Hirtle chart. Chick Bowen 03:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Another question. Does the photographer still own the rights to the photo even if he was only payed photographer? If the photographer was unknown, is it possible that the rights are now in the hands in of Mr. Williform and hiss Kindergarten school?-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 16:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

That's a bit complicated, and is explained in the work for hire article. Basically, there needs to be a contract specifying that the client rather than the photographer retains copyright, which is not usually done with school photos (and if it is, the school owns the photo, not the kid in the picture). Chick Bowen 16:45, 20 January 2013 (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 ⚡ 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Hugh A. Cowan photo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of Canadian minister unlikely to be actual work of Filipino editor. No indication of date or original publication date to establish copyright status by age. VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

One question, the Cowan images were just emailed to me months ago and they told me that they wanted me to upload it. How should we fix this? Should I ask for an OTRS? The one who asked me to upload it was their grandson (I think, but I am sure he was his relative). And the photos are somewhat 60 years or more years old.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 19:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

This could easily be an unpublished photo taken by a professional photographer. In that case, you need permission from the photo studio unless the photo is at least 120 years old. See Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

What if the author was already dead, and he never had a photo studio?-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 10:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Then the permission should come from his heirs instead. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 10:40, 17 January 2013 (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 ⚡ 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:James Cowan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of Canadian PR consultant unlikely to be actual work of Filipino editor (see also their other uploads). No indication of date or original publication date to establish copyright status by age. VernoWhitney ( talk) 19:44, 12 January 2013 (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 ⚡ 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Rocky Williform - TSU ad at GBIA.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• The presumably copyrighted ad is clearly the focus of the image, and so not de minimis, making this a derivative work. VernoWhitney ( talk) 21:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep. Added proper author.-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 14:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • ...which still doesn't provide evidence of permission from the ad's copyright holder (in this case, probably TSU). We need a verifiable release in order to use the image. VernoWhitney ( talk) 14:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Mr. Williform told me that he owns the photo in the ad. And the ad was not made by TSU. Here is what he exactly told me in his email: "... Also as it relates to the airport photo it is a private photo is a public display. It is NOT the work of TSU, nor is it a copy of the ad. It is my photo that was taken in the airport of the publicly displayed advertisement."-- AR E N Z O Y 1 6A •t a l k• 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Since the ad is the focus of the photograph (i.e., it is not de minimis as I indicated in my opening statement), this image is subject to both the copyright of the photographer as well as the copyright of the advertisement itself. Now the copyright of the advertisement is not determined solely by the image of Mr. Williform, but by the choice and placement of text around it as well. Furthermore, displaying something publicly does not make it public domain. VernoWhitney ( talk) 16:00, 17 January 2013 (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 Chick Bowen ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:University-College-Lahore-logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphaned logo, likely copyrighted. University College Lahore already contains a logo, so this would be unnecessary even with a fair use rationale. — ξ ^xplicit 23:59, 12 January 2013 (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.