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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Speak Kuwaiti.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Book cover, so can't be 'free licence' unless uploader is author, no evidence or claim or that nature made. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

The cover photo has been taken from the main website of the book 'Speak Kuwaiti'. www.speak-kuwaiti.com

K. Ahmad Ali (kam965) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kam965 ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• There's no wiki article about this book, so not even a fair use can be claimed. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 12:35, 31 July 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 as F9 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Dhaka Montage 2.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• http://www.flickriver.com/photos/gdabir/2914795672/ - Is not listed as being under a free license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • In fact, it is not even the same photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 28 July 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: Deleted; the supporting material in the article Veteran identification card had to be deleted as copyvio, so there's nowhere to put it any more where it meets fair use criterion #8. Diannaa ( talk) 23:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

File:VAC Health Identification Card.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not aware of officially released Canadian ID being PD, possibly below TOO though. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Permission to use the image is on their copyright or important notices page, which states "Unless otherwise specified, you may reproduce the materials on this site, in whole or in part, for non-commercial purposes, and in any format, without charge or further permission". Furthermore, this is only a sample of the card, which was released by the Canadian government on a government website. It should not be deleted. There are no distinct markings or private information of any individual. — Topbookclub ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 July 2013

For "for non-commercial purposes" isn't compatible with Wikipedia. Eeekster ( talk) 08:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{ dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment While released on the Government website, the card is not issued by the government itself, but rather by BCBS who would be the copyright holder if the image is indeed copyrighted. Caffeyw ( talk) 12:16, 28 August 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: Deleted; file is not in use. Diannaa ( talk) 23:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

File:BOOSA2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is logo artwork, no indication uploader has permission. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:52, 28 July 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: Kept. Diannaa ( talk) 23:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Paris las vegas boulevard interior.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a panoramic view of a building interior, the concern is that this is thus a 3D artwork, for which the US does not have automatic FoP Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Freedom of panorama applies to buildings which are ordinarily visible from a public place. I don't know if freedom of panorama applies to the interior of a building if only the exterior is ordinarily visible from a public place. Per the case Leicester v. Warner Brothers, freedom of panorama seems to apply to artworks which are part of a building, if the artwork can't be separated from the building if the building was completed on 1 December 1990 or later, but possibly not if the building is older than that. When was this building completed? Are the things we see separable from the building or not? Also, are the things we see artworks or buildings contained within another building? Is the interior of the building a public place? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
• The "artwork" is not artwork, it's actual buildings. No different than taking a picture of the local street except the street is covered by a roof. Caffeyw ( talk) 14:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I see. In that case, there are two questions:
    1. Were the buildings completed before 1 December 1990? In that case, they are in the public domain (see Commons:Template:PD-US-architecture).
    2. Are the buildings "ordinarily visible from a public place"? If so, then it doesn't matter whether they are in the public domain or not: photography is allowed anyway (see {{ FoP-US}}). I don't know what US law means with a "public place". -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I'm pretty sure Paris, Las Vegas didn't exist till the late 90's. As for public space, in the US in general public space is anywhere multiple people are free to move around, and that no expectation of privacy exists. Being on private property does not in itself make a place non-public. Law does allow the owner to restrict photography taken on their property, but a person would not be charged with copyright violation, rather it would be a trespassing charge that would apply. Thus the picture would still be legal. In this case I believe therefore that it meets all legal requirements as long as the person taking the photo has released it. Caffeyw ( talk) 16:10, 25 August 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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC) reply

File:BellagioChineseNewYearDragon.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a work of 3 dimensional art, for which no automatic FoP exists in the origin country. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:59, 28 July 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; The Trevi Fountain was finished in 1762 and thus does not enjoy copyright protection. Diannaa ( talk) 00:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC) reply

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

• This is a building recreation as an interior, It is a 3-dimensional work of art, for which no automatic FoP exists in the origin country. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:00, 28 July 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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC) reply

File:El cover group w copy.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly an album cover, and was seemingly tagged as Copyvio., Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:01, 28 July 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 as F9 by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Dhaka Montage 3.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Contains portions from http://www.flickr.com/photos/photographybymeersadi/9238820369/ which I could not identify as being released under a free license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:04, 28 July 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 as F5 by Jujutacular ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:UniversalTelevision1975.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly logo artwork, and not uploader's own. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

The uploader added this, and several other clearly non-free images a few days ago, adding them to Universal Television. [1] These were uploaded under a range of invalid licenses, mostly as his own work. He has added some of these to the article again a few minutes ago, [2] with this one being a duplicate of one I had earlier tagged. I have to head off right now, but will warn him when I return, unless somebody else does in the meantime. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I've left a warning on the uploader's page, removed the file from the article and tagged it as orphaned. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{ dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

It's tagged as non-free but taggging with {{ dfu}} is inappropriate since there is no FUR. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:10, 29 July 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.