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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

• Tagged with {{ PD-self}}, but the description credits the image to Leicestershire County Council. Note that this same photograph (though at lower resolution, and dated later than the upload date of this Wikipedia file) appears at  [1], a subpage of the Leicestershire County Council Web site. There is no indication on the Leicestershire County Council site that their content has been released to the public domain. Their copyright page states, "The material featured on this website is subject to Leicestershire County Council copyright protection unless otherwise indicated." — Bkell ( talk) 01:09, 19 September 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 as F11 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply

File:10th Street View.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• used only in userspace; architectural design concept drawing, doubtful was released cc - would need OTRS or much better source to prove this Skier Dude ( talk) 05:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply

• Currently in my userspace as (I think rightly) I prefer to have a decent first version of an article in the sandbox before pushing it live. That said, the article will be moved to the main namespace in the next day. As far as the status of this image, I'm in the process of contacting MTFA Architecture for their preference, although the image was released for use by the Coalition for the National Museum of the American people (their logo at the bottom of this image). Would a communication from that group be acceptable? - Markeer 01:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply

• The image is no longer only in userspace, as the prepped page has be pushed into the main namespace.- Markeer 02:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• The copyright holder has sent an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org granting permission for it's use on Wikipedia. Looking at the page, I believe a volunteer case number is needed before this Friday, September 30th. Is there any way to ensure that this is provided before then? - Markeer 21:00, 26 September 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: Withdrawn. — Bkell ( talk) 06:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Snake bird nesting.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged with {{ cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Taken from Flickr  [2]; Flickr source page says this is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). "Non-commercial" is not free enough for Wikipedia. No evidence that this image was ever licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.5 as claimed. — Bkell ( talk) 06:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh, wait, I bet that Flickr user ( badjoby) is the same person as the uploader here ( Badjoby). So never mind. Withdrawn. — Bkell ( talk) 06:43, 19 September 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 as F9 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Hamtaro301.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is tagged as self-licensed, but the image appears to be a screen-shot from the copyrighted show Hamtaro (see also http://www.hamtaro.com/home.html). Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 07:45, 19 September 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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: all deleted Skier Dude ( talk) 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• [3]. Either all promotional or Historical photos of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is the author of any of these files. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:41, 19 September 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

• Licence looks wrong. It was a logo for a deleted page. Philafrenzy ( talk) 11:30, 19 September 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Payson temple rendering.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• I am not familiar with how "renderings" effect copyright status. However, my main concern is that this "rendering" is so similar to the "Official rendering" (seen here) that I don't believe that Symes did not do enough to justify his owning the copyright. If you note, the plant life is all the same. The structure is the same. Even the four people in the lower right side are included in both drawings.
  The way I see it, just because I redrew a copyrighted image that doesn't give me a copyright claim. The person who did the official rendering still owns the copyright. -- ARTEST4ECHO ( ^talk/ _contribs) 12:29, 19 September 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 Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

File:McMaster-Carr catalog 113.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Commons:Commons:2D copying says that when 2D works are photographed, the copyright remains with the original owner. This seems to be a (mostly) 2D work, insofar as the book's cover is 2D. Hirsutism ( talk) 22:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply

It's a picture of a catalog, which is most definitely NOT a 2D work. It's a 3D object, and a representation of it isn't protected by copyright - the content is protected by copyright, which this picture is not infringing upon. 98.232.219.86 ( talk) 16:47, 23 September 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.