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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

• Plaque was dedicated October 16, 1993 (see http://search.pahistoricalmarkers.com/). Text is copyrighted by Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. See also Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC. GrapedApe ( talk) 05:52, 15 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Logo of Maktab Duli Pengiran Muda Al-Muhtadee Billah, Gadong, Brunei Darussalam.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Organizational logo, not necessarily uploaders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:04, 15 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Sheikh Mubarack Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image is clearly a scan of an older photograph, and not self-published as claimed. No other authorship information is provided. First publication was only in 1977, making it more likely that the original is still under copyright. Super Mario Man 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• There is a comment on the talk page which probably refers to this file. Unfortunately, that information isn't sufficient for keeping the file. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:20, 15 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Mubarack Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unlikely to be self-published – probably scanned from a book. If so, and due to the sparse source information, the copyright status of the original is impossible to verify. Super Mario Man 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• There is a comment on the talk page which probably refers to this file. Unfortunately, that information isn't sufficient for keeping the file. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:20, 15 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Michael Dweck mermaid 1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of non-free photograph. Stefan2 ( talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• It is a free photograph, released under CC-BY-SA 2.0. [1] See "Additional info" to the lower right and click on "some rights reserved" beneath it – you get a copy of the CC license, which I'd linked in the upload forms. Avian appreciator ( talk) 21:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There is no evidence that the Flickr uploader (June Bugowski) had permission from the photographer ( Michael Dweck) to publish his photo under the indicated licence. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It is plainly Dweck's own photo site, and he keeps changing his username for whatever reason. It was "curlymancan" when I uploaded them. Avian appreciator ( talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Could you provide evidence of this? For example, the Flickr user's profile page says "I am: Female" which contradicts with the article Michael Dweck. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Flickr source says the account is "Michael Dweck". Evidently, the images belong to Dweck. I don't see any female "June Bugowski". -- Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 13:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
          • That suggests the name on the Flickr site has been changed recently, possibly in response to this discussion. We still need verification that the account belongs to Michael Dweck. January ( talk) 13:56, 17 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Michael Dweck Art Base.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyvio per Commons:COM:DW. Stefan2 ( talk) 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• It is a free photograph, released under CC-BY-SA 2.0. [2] See "Additional info" to the lower right and click on "some rights reserved" beneath it – you get a copy of the CC license, which I'd linked in the upload forms. It should, however, be retitled File:Michael Dweck Art Basel.jpg, that was a typo and the interface wouldn't allow me to change it after having uploaded it. Avian appreciator ( talk) 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There is no evidence that the Flickr uploader (June Bugowski) had permission from the photographer ( Michael Dweck) to publish his photo under the indicated licence. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It is plainly Dweck's own photo site, and he keeps changing his username for whatever reason. It was "curlymancan" when I uploaded them. Avian appreciator ( talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Could you provide evidence of this? For example, the Flickr user's profile page says "I am: Female" which contradicts with the article Michael Dweck. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Flickr source says the account is "Michael Dweck". Evidently, the images belong to Dweck. I don't see any female "June Bugowski". -- Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 13:19, 17 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Michael Dweck Fototeca de Cuba.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of non-free poster. Stefan2 ( talk) 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• It is a free photograph, released under CC-BY-SA 2.0. [3] See "Additional info" to the lower right and click on "some rights reserved" beneath it – you get a copy of the CC license, which I'd linked in the upload forms. Avian appreciator ( talk) 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There is no evidence that the Flickr uploader (June Bugowski) had permission from the photographer ( Michael Dweck) to publish his photo under the indicated licence. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It is plainly Dweck's own photo site, and he keeps changing his username for whatever reason. It was "curlymancan" when I uploaded them. Avian appreciator ( talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Could you provide evidence of this? For example, the Flickr user's profile page says "I am: Female" which contradicts with the article Michael Dweck. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Flickr source says the account is "Michael Dweck". Evidently, the images belong to Dweck. I don't see any female "June Bugowski". -- Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 13:19, 17 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

File:CGWoodson roadside marker.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Historical marker is copyrighted. No freedom of panorama for this in the U.S. Doesn't matter what the photographer licenses it under. Ramaksoud2000 ^{( Talk to me)} 21:26, 15 December 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: Resolved: old version deleted. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 19:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Whitman poem When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd Sequel page 3.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Contains 3D stuff around the page, so permission is needed from the photographer. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• The allegedly offending image is a picture of a page in an book published in 1865 (public domain). Just taking a picture of an old item or work in public domain isn't sufficiently original to be copyrightable, per US law Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (as indicated on the picture's page). Whitman Archive--the source of the image--allows its images to be freely distributed and adapted as long as attribution is given (as is already given). There is no "possibly unfree" issue about this image.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 22:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. only applies to 2D works, but as I wrote, the surroundings are 3D. See for example Commons:Template:Non-free frame revdel. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • If I clipped the image to just to the area of the page, which would be 2D, and since the Whitman Archive allows adaptations, then uploaded the photo, would that be acceptable? The 3D part of the image is just the 24 pages behind the one being shown (something that happens on photocopiers and scanners). It's not an artistic depiction of the book, it's just an unoriginal photo focusing on that page, and the background just happens to be there as an accident of how the book is opened to that page. I think you're being a little needlessly overcautious in your analysis of this photograph and calling this a "3D" depiction of what is essentially equivalent to scanning or photocopying the book is a exaggerated stretch.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • If the 3D parts are removed, then it would be fine, yes. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Cropped and the new version uploaded. Please review.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Looks OK. The old revision needs to be deleted, though. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 00:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
            • I don't know how to do that. If you can, teach me.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 22:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
              • The old revision has been deleted.-- Rockfang ( talk) 06:42, 19 December 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.