Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

This page is for listing and discussing files that are marked as available under a free license or public domain, but have disputed source or licensing information. Files are listed here for 14 days before they are processed. Files that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed here.

To list texts with copyright issues, please use WP:Copyright problems.

Instructions

Before listing, remember that files which are already marked unfree and used under fair use should not be listed here.

To list an file on this page:

I	Edit the file page. Add {{puf|date=12 February 2012}} to the file page. If the file is in use, also add {{pufc|File_name.ext|date=12 February 2012}} to the caption(s).
II	Create its PUF subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:puf2|image=File_name.ext|reason=reason}} ~~~~ (remember to exclude the File: prefix).
III	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw-puf|File_name.ext}} ~~~~ Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the file

Unlike Wikipedia:Files for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file and contributions should not be added solely in those terms.

Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days. Files that are accepted following this fourteen-day period should have {{oldpuffull}} added to the file talk page. If no objection to the file's deletion is raised, or no proof that the file is indeed free is provided, the file may be deleted without further notice after the 14-day period.

Note: Files can be unlisted immediately if they are indisputably in the public domain or verifiably licensed under an indisputably free license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc.—see Wikipedia:File copyright tags for more on these).

Speedy deletion

Blatant copyright violations or files missing source or license information may be "speedied"

If a file is unquestionably copied from another website and no assertion of permission or fair use is made, the file may be speedy deleted under criterion F9 (formerly I9). Such files do not need to be listed here. Please tag the file with {{subst:db-f9|url=source URL}} and warn the user with {{Nothanks-sd}}.

If a file is missing source, evidence of permission, or license information, place either use:

• {{subst:nsd}} for no source
• {{subst:nld}} for no license

or

• {{subst:npd}} for No evidence of permission

on the description page to put the file in the appropriate category. After being tagged for 7 days, the file will be eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 4 or criterion 11 for images/media.

Please also notify the uploader so they get a chance to fix the problem(s). The templates {{subst:File source|File:file name}} and {{image copyright}} are made for this purpose, but feel free to write a message of your own. It is not necessary to warn the uploader about every individual file if they have uploaded several of such files, but at least one message telling them that files without source/license will be deleted should be given to each user.

If a file is indisputably non-free, and its possible use can comply with our non-free content policy, be bold and retag it as a non-free file with an appropriate tag instead of taking it to this page.

Please note that this page is not for disputing the fair use of already non-free media, but for the disputing if a freely licensed file really is free. Please take queries of this nature to Files for deletion or Non-free content review An archiving system was implemented July 2007. For older discussions, see the history pages. For all discussions from July 3, 2007 forward, see the Archive.

Holding cell

These files have been listed for at least 14 days. Files that have been determined to be acceptable may be removed from this page.

New listings

January 30

File:Portrait of Randy Napoleon by Fay Kleinman.jpg

File:Portrait of Randy Napoleon by Fay Kleinman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• From Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 29#File:File:Portrait of Randy Napoleon by Fay Kleinman.jpg (closed by User:AnomieBOT because of a wrong file name): "This is a photograph of a painting which is most likely (but not certainly) still under copyright. From the lower right of the image, it appears that this painting was completed in 1986. Unless it was published prior to 3/1/1989 (keeping in mind, of course, that exhibition of the painting doesn't constitute publication) without notice and without registration within 5 years, it is under copyright." Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Anavoi.jpg

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

• Painting of unknown provenance and authorship, claimed PD-old, but likely to be much younger judging by its style. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lokum-1-.jpg

File:Lokum-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Old upload from 2006, by unreliable and no longer active uploader. Has a source and a PD-author claim, but the PD claim is entirely unsubstantiated and not very plausible. Source website is marked as copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Belfield FM Logo.jpg

File:Belfield FM Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious {{PD-author}} statement. Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Reform & Development.jpg

File:Reform & Development.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious {{PD-textlogo}} statement. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Changed it to {{ |non-free logo }}. --B for Bandetta (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, so this "possibly unfree files" discussion no longer applies. However, I have tagged it as having no fair use rationale. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There are so many logos of other Egyptian political parties that no one has objected to, like File:Freedom and Justice Logo.png and File:Nour Party.png and File:New Wafd Party logo.jpg. Why are the ones I upload the only ones that upset you? Can't their fair use rationale apply to the ones I uploaded as well? --B for Bandetta (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Your image was reported because of wrong licence information (first it said that it was a free image and then it said that it was an unfree image without any fair use rationale). If you want to avoid reports about improper image tagging, make sure to tag images correctly. Two of the other files that you mentioned were tagged correctly, so there is no need to report them. The third image has now been reported: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Wafd Party logo.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• This JPG file now looks OK, so it can be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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⚡ 19:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Nyc-subway-globe-sign.jpg

File:Nyc-subway-globe-sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No freedom of panorama for artworks in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Public domain -- published by the City of New York. Llamabr (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Does New York release all of its work to the public domain? There is no New York template listed at Category:US State PD templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MMT Logo.jpg

File:MMT Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious {{self}} claim. Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Proof of release of usage here: http://www.mmtribute.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=148462483 Asomath 12:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The page says "Free to use and distribute." No mention of any CC-BY-SA 3.0, so the licence tag may be wrong. Is "Free to use and distribute" free enough? Does "use and distribute" include the permission to modify it, or is it more like CC-ND? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the lack of clarity and mention of modification. The photo has now been properly released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 at the previously listed link Asomath 01:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Josh Samuels Match Attax.png

File:Josh Samuels Match Attax.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubous {{self}} statement. Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Garfield.JPG

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

• Dubious {{self}} statement. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Possibly fan art by the uploader, but even if so, there's the issue of character copyright. (See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif) cmadler (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete unless user:Mozaika2 is that hack of a cartoonist Jim Davis.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ESD Party.png

File:ESD Party.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious {{self}} statement. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Changed it to {{ |non-free logo }}. --B for Bandetta (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, so PUF no longer applies. Tagged with "no fair use rationale". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There are so many logos of other Egyptian political parties that no one has objected to, like File:Freedom and Justice Logo.png and File:Nour Party.png and File:New Wafd Party logo.jpg. Why are the ones I upload the only ones that upset you? Can't their fair use rationale apply to the ones I uploaded as well? --B for Bandetta (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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⚡ 19:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Linear counterpoint from Stravinsky's Octet.png

File:Linear counterpoint from Stravinsky's Octet.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• From Octet (Stravinsky), apparently finished in 1923 and thus presumably published in 1923 or later. At the time when this was made, Igor Stravinsky was living in France. He died in 1971, so per the 70 years p.m.a. rule currently in use in France, this is still copyrighted in France. On the URAA date (1 January 1996), France applied 50 years p.m.a., so this was copyrighted in France on that date and so this is copyrighted in the United States for 95 years from publication. Becomes free in France in 2042. If already published in 1923, it becomes free in the United States in 2019; if published later, it becomes free later. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Stefan2's assessment for the most part (French copyright grants an extension of 8 years and 120 days to pre-World War II musical works, so it will remain copyrighted in France until mid-2050); US copyright was restored/established by URAA and this should be deleted as a non-free file. cmadler (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• File has now been marked as fair use, which certainly looks legitimate (being used for illustration of the musical technique). PUF could be closed now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that it can be kept as fair use. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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⚡ 19:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Linear counterpoint from Stravinsky's Octet.mid

File:Linear counterpoint from Stravinsky's Octet.mid (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See #File:Linear counterpoint from Stravinsky's Octet.png above. This is a MIDI file with the same information. Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• As per above. cmadler (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• The licensing information has been updated, so this can probably be kept now. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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⚡ 19:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Izair.jpg

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

• The image was posted at http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=500362#500362 on May 10, 2007 (about a month before being uploaded here). The uploader (Enderender) has also uploaded other files copied from wowturkey.com. Razvan Socol (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Plane t.jpg

File:Plane t.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image has a wowturkey.com watermark. It was posted at http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=491119#491119 on Apr 30, 2007 (about 6 months before being uploaded here). The uploader (Enderender) has also uploaded other files copied from wowturkey.com.

File:Unorthodox.png

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

• Looks like a cover illustration of some kind. If so, it is probably not free. If not, it is probably useless. Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTHOST  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Josh Cola.png

File:Josh Cola.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Are we really sure that this 3D rendering of a can is free? Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTHOST  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

January 31

File:Original Red Velvet Recipe Card.jpg

File:Original Red Velvet Recipe Card.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Description implies derivative work of someone else's recipe. Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hold off--Looks like the corporate copyright holder is trying to make a release on the talk page.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely a derivative work, but it may not be copyrighted. I've asked the uploader for details about the source publication because I wonder if it might be a case of {{PD-US-no notice}}. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Photo came from website and has a circa date of 1969 listed on it. [1]. I also have a copy of the same card from family collection and there is no copyright listed on it. Reyna09 17:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniesortega (talk • contribs)

File:GKSS2.jpg

File:GKSS2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low resolution+no EXIF → copyvio likely. Can be speedied if this or this is the same image. Stefan2 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it cannot be speedied. It is the same image, but the deletion was inappropriate — the uploader claimed to be the author, but it was deleted with the {{Di-no permission}} template, which only allows the deletion of images of which the uploader does not claim to be the author. Unless a source image is found to establish this as a blatant copyvio, this image does not qualify for speedy deletion. No opinion on whether or not it should be deleted here. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:GKSS1.jpg

File:GKSS1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low resolution+no EXIF → copyvio likely. Can be speedied if this or this is the same image. Stefan2 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it cannot be speedied. It is the same image, but the deletion was inappropriate — the uploader claimed to be the author, but it was deleted with the {{Di-no permission}} template, which only allows the deletion of images of which the uploader does not claim to be the author. Unless a source image is found to establish this as a blatant copyvio, this image does not qualify for speedy deletion. No opinion on whether or not it should be deleted here. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Abake.2008.jpg

File:Abake.2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious source and author. Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[2]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:9.IamStillAlive11.02.jpg

File:9.IamStillAlive11.02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a book or catalogue. Stefan2 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[3]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:7.circus.poster.prune.jpg

File:7.circus.poster.prune.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't think that the poster is permanently installed on that wall, so freedom of panorama likely doesn't apply. Furthermore, it is not clear whether it is in a country which allows freedom of panorama of indoors 2D objects or not. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader deleted the PUF template and added the notice "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". "Åbäke" is definitely not a personal name and besides there is no source of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:6.VandAMammals.jpg

File:6.VandAMammals.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't think that the poster is permanently installed on that wall, so freedom of panorama likely doesn't apply. Furthermore, it is not clear whether it is in a country which allows freedom of panorama of indoors 2D objects or not. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[4]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:2009.LearningFromLasVegasXX.jpg

File:2009.LearningFromLasVegasXX.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of books. Stefan2 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[5]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:2009.ACampFront.jpg

File:2009.ACampFront.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a CD. Stefan2 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[6]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:2001.aloneinlondon.jpg

File:2001.aloneinlondon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Presumably taken from somewhere, not sure where. Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[7]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:14.Kitsune.jpg

File:14.Kitsune.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a booklet. Stefan2 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[8]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:13.Sexymachinery.jpg

File:13.Sexymachinery.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of various things. Stefan2 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[9]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:11.SlowAphabetALL.jpg

File:11.SlowAphabetALL.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of books/booklets/magazines. Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[10]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:10.100Chairs.jpg

File:10.100Chairs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a book. Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[11]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:8.MiroslawXValenceCircle.jpg

File:8.MiroslawXValenceCircle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear if "Kajsa" and User:Charlie-jayne are the same. If not, no source of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The user deleted the PUF template and added the statement "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". "Åbäke" is obviously not a personal name (see other reports above) so this is unsourced and without permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Work.francis.upritchard.jpg

File:Work.francis.upritchard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear if freedom of panorama applies since the country of the statue isn't given. Uploader has uploaded plenty of images and seems to have used a new camera for each image (according to the EXIF), so {{self}} statement is dubious. Stefan2 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:4.2tees.jpg

File:4.2tees.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear if the uploader is the photographer. The uploader's images with EXIF all specify different camera models. Most people only use one or two cameras, not a dozen of them. Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[12]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Me-having-fun-outside.jpg

File:Me-having-fun-outside.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• License on flikr not compatible. Eeekster (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• The new user has made a start at wiki-authoring, but looks very inexperienced. I had a look at it on flickr and the license looks alright. What is the issue with the license on Flickr? Mediation4u (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Flickr indicates NC.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The uploader to Flickr is the same as the uploader to Wikipedia. Link from Wikipedia to Flickr at the Wikipedia user page, link from Flickr to Wikipedia at the Flickr profile page. If you upload your own pictures to both Flickr and Wikipedia, you are not required to use the same licence at both sites, and reusers are free to use either licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with keep comment above. The Default {new user bar} instructions appear to have been followed by the newbie, CathMontgomery to try to upload according to the instructions.

    The {new user bar} has been automatically on every new login page since last summer. It provides a link prompting newbies upload their photo. It looks like the user tried to follow those instructions. Mediation4u (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Wow, such a lot of fuss. I'm new at this. I've changed the settings on the Flickr photo of me on Flickr, as I don't mind who reproduces my photos (and I am surprised they would want to :-) I thought I was being asked to post a picture of me, but no worries on deleting it if I haven't uploaded it in the right way. Please let me know if I need to do anything else to keep the picture of me on my test area page, thanks! CathMontgomery (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per the "Wikipedia contributions" link on http://www.flickr.com/people/make--me--smile — there's no way that the Flickr and Wikipedia accounts could be different people, so there's no copyright issue. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep is the consensus so far, because the 3 keeps above have addressed all the concerns raised by the delete proponents. Specifically: (1) the uploaded file now has the same licencing of attribution in both flickr and wikipedia and (2) evidence for ownership source has been checked. Therefore the consensus currently stands at keep. Mediation4u (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}
• Next. Following the policy stated here. Please raise any other new concerns in the next 11 days, otherwise the consensus stands at keep. If no further new objections are raised then after 11 days the verdict of keep will be posted on the File's image page with a link-reference to this discussion. This will record, not only that a challenge had been raised, but also with the reasoning and discussion behind the keep consensus decision. Mediation4u (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}

Gee, thanks guys. It looks like consensus does work pretty well in wiki-land after all. And what are all those sopa, pipa and acta people on about? None of them have tried to upload their own photo of themselves to Wikipedia, that's for sure! Thanks go to you, the copyright-upholders, for protecting the whole thing from the law courts. Well done peeps. XX Cath. CathMontgomery (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Wykeham McNeill and PM.jpeg

File:Wykeham McNeill and PM.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• web resolution; all other uploads by JamaicanMD (talk · contribs) were copyvios. Lupo 07:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:ISS006-E-43181.jpg

File:ISS006-E-43181.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:ChristianKeiber Celebrity Image.jpg

File:ChristianKeiber Celebrity Image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image, a professional publicity headshot of an actor, fails OTRS confirmation of its permission. The EXIF states that the author is "Jason Kirk/Dailyceleb.com [phone number redacted]." But, see Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#Confirmation for File:ChristianKeiber Celebrity Image.jpg, where the uploader is not the photographer and the uploader is unable to give a credible account that he is either the actual copyright owner or is otherwise authorized to make the release. According to the uploader, "I know Christian Keiber and he gave me his head shot to post...He owns the headshot and it is not necessary to credit the photographer." That certainly isn't enough to prove free license release. GrapedApe (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Update: OTRS ticket removed, as the emailer is not the photographer.Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Confirmation_for_File:ChristianKeiber_Celebrity_Image.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Navcad poster.jpg

File:Navcad poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Painting USN patch.JPG

File:Painting USN patch.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Original Painting Tailhook Association Patch.jpg

File:Original Painting Tailhook Association Patch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Roger William Harris Navy Gold Wings.jpg

File:Roger William Harris Navy Gold Wings.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Roger W Harris.jpg

File:Roger W Harris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• etc - see User:Multichill/top_self_uploaders/Azurdia1954 Bulwersator (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Some of them could easily be {{PD-USGov}} but there is no easy way to tell... --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Cribwall.jpg

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

• Dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work" - web resolution, used here (smaller version) Bulwersator (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Krenek's chord classification from Studies in Counterpoint.png

File:Krenek's chord classification from Studies in Counterpoint.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This might be unfree, but I'm not sure. Made by Ernst Krenek (1900-1991) in 1940. According to the article on him, he has been a resident of a lot of different countries, and when this was made, it seems that he was a resident of the United States, so it is likely that it was first published there. Thus, the copyright term is either 0 years (if no copyright notice), 28 years (if a notice but no renewal) or 95 years from publication (if notice+renewal). Is there any way to find the correct term length? There is also a possibility that it might be below the threshold of originality; I'm not sure. Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So, what are you worried about? Hyacinth (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If the term is 95 years, it is still copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, you think. Are you looking for someone to tell you it is, or it isn't? Hyacinth (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So if I took File:Just major third on C.png and labeled it as consonant, would we have to change the copyright? Hyacinth (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, this file is just citing Krenek's theory, i.e. the ideas developed in his work, but not his creative form of expression of them. Ideas, facts, theories etc. are not copyrightable as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Argh, yes, sorry! I should have checked this better. I don't think that there is any problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Krenek's chord classification from Studies in Counterpoint.mid

File:Krenek's chord classification from Studies in Counterpoint.mid (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See #File:Krenek's chord classification from Studies in Counterpoint.png above. This is a MIDI version of the same thing. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• keep per above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

February 1

File:SacredHeartCathedralOfShenyang.JPG

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

• Something is fishy here. Free licences are listed but so are the words "fair use rationale" (although no rationale is given). Stefan2 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ihsankhairir profile.JPG

File:Ihsankhairir profile.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The text "to be used to represent the user only" sounds like a restriction to the use of this image. Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Demott-rachel.jpg

File:Demott-rachel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source Bulwersator (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ABAKE.JPG

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

• I tagged this with "no source". The uploader removed the tag, but I still don't think that the image is sourced. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[13]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:CoolGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:PopcornEaterGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:CollegeBoundGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:HealthAndFitnessGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:DoctorGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:SwayzeSpeedkingGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:IceCreamEaterGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:GasWorkerGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:DufferGarfield.jpg

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

• Ridiculous situation ("There is no loss of commercial use by presenting these photographs (rather, the intended commercial use is enhanced by its presentation here)"), but: No FOP for statues in USA, no evidence that this statue is in PD, there is a fair use rationale but file is used in a gallery Bulwersator (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Henrys.jpg

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

• This image is all over the internet, never credited, and I can't find the original source. But the uploader has uploaded dozens of copyvios, and I doubt this is legit. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2

File:My inner beast in odense.jpg

File:My inner beast in odense.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per commons:COM:FOP#Denmark: sculptor still alive. Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:My inner beast in Barcelona.jpg

File:My inner beast in Barcelona.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is in Spain (which has freedom of panorama for artworks) but at File:My inner beast in odense.jpg, the same artwork is seen in Denmark, so maybe it isn't permanently placed at the location in Barcelona? Permanent placement at some location seems to be a requirement for freedom of panorama in Spain (unlike China where it doesn't seem to be a requirement). Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:CurtMelDvorak.JPG

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

• Web resolution + no EXIF → likely copyvio. Also note that the same uploader uploaded File:CurtisDvorak.JPG which is an obvious copyvio of the man on this photo. Stefan2 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Bluebird BE-1 electric truck.jpg

File:Bluebird BE-1 electric truck.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Author: Bluebird Automotive" but contradicting {{self}}. Web resolution and no EXIF. Stefan2 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:BMB LCPB11.jpg

File:BMB LCPB11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims both "own work" and "someone else's work" at the same time. Uploader lists [14] as source where I can find neither the image nor any source of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Air Heart.jpg

File:Air Heart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The thing held in the hand is supposed to be a sculpture. The sculptor is Chinese but apparently seems to spend half of her time in Paris and half of it in Shanghai. Clearly fails commons:COM:FOP#France but I'm not so sure about commons:COM:FOP#China. If the photo was taken in China, it needs to be "an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place". If someone is holding an artistic work in his hand, is it then "on display in an outdoor public place"? Note that the Chinese law doesn't seem to require it to be permanently located at any location; it just needs to be located somewhere while the photographer takes the photo. Stefan2 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question: isn't the uploader implying they are themselves the author of the object too? The name of the uploader's account is that of the artist, and it's a single-purpose autobio account. (Perhaps not a good sign in terms of COI editing, but usually a good sign in terms of image rights.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice the user name. Yes, it seems likely that the uploader is the copyright holder of the object. In that case, there is no problem with the image, but there could be COI problems with the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg

File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph from a UK government website, uploaded in the (likely) mistaken assumption that it is covered by the Open Government Licence, when the source website itself only speaks of Crown Copyright. Argument made on talk, to the effect that the OGL now applies automatically to all government-published material, appears to be based on a misreading of the sources quoted. According to [15], as well as the text of the license itself [16], OGL still only applies to publications that are individually marked with it, and the statement here [17] that the OGL "is applicable across the entire public sector" only means that all public sector bodies may choose to use it, not that they do so automatically. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• See the site's copyright page, which (albeit slightly poorly worded for our purposes) publicly notes the release of all "core" Crown Copyright works on the site. Disclaimer: The Open Government Licence used to be my "day job", and so my understanding of things like its scope is necessarily based on material not entirely public; my former colleagues are working on making it clearer. James F. (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Uhm, but it isn't releasing it under the OGL, is it? It just speaks of traditional Crown Copyright. And the permission it grants appears to be a restricted, non-derivative one ("provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context"). Isn't it for this reason that we generally classify Crown Copyright works as non-free? See {{Non-free Crown copyright}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Per this sock report the person making the argument on the image talk page is a sock of an editor banned for sockpuppetry and copyright violations, so anything he says about copyright can usually be disregarded. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• The same image (or certainly from the same website) has previously been deleted from Commons. The problem is the NIO's copyright notice, which reads:

• The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

• Whereas other government departments use a slightly different copyright notice:

• The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence (external link). This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

• The inclusion of the Open Government Licence part is the key part, as the relevant part of this includes "You are free to . . . adapt the Information . . . exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application". Crown Copyright doesn't explicitly allow for adaptation without the OGL clause, and we can't use images that can't be adapted except as fair-use. This may be an error on the part of the Northern Ireland Office not including the OGL clause on their website, but until they do or we receive clarification through OTRS we shouldn't be using any images from there unless they are fair use. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree that NIO's wording (in contravention of what they were meant to put there, per the letter TNA sent around) is unhelpful, but see this statement which trumps NIO's website (and that of any other department). "Information owned by the Crown is offered for use and re-use under the Open Government Licence by authority of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, an official in The National Archives." Will go and undelete that other one from Commons (it's not the same - see 1 vs 2 - but good spot! Suggest we close this discussion and that below it now it's cleared up. James F. (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hugo Swire Official.jpg

File:Hugo Swire Official.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Same case as above Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Same justification as above. James F. (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Per above also. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  See reply. :-) James F. (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MGpamarrdma2aa.jpg

File:MGpamarrdma2aa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Old photograph, doubtful copyright status, uploader may not be copyright holder due to history of violations, no real claim of ownership besides copyright tag, orphaned, part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mhgffft5gk.jpg

File:Mhgffft5gk.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Old photograph, doubtful copyright status, uploader may not be copyright holder due to history of violations, no real claim of ownership besides copyright tag, orphaned, part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jjlatrrra.JPG

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

• Old photograph, doubtful copyright status, uploader may not be copyright holder due to history of violations, no real claim of ownership besides copyright tag, orphaned, part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jjrrra.JPG

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

• Per this [18] the uploader was born in 1978, and this photo was, by the looks of it, taken prior to that time due to the age of the subject - who despite being born in 1923 looks very young in this picture. Furthermore, uploader is a serial copyright violator, nomination made as part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Might be in the public domain because of age, but impossible to tell without more information. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jeppiassr.jpg

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

• Oldish photograph, doubtful copyright status, uploader may not be copyright holder due to history of violations, no real claim of ownership besides copyright tag, orphaned, part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Am444gr1y.jpg

File:Am444gr1y.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Does this constitute an unauthorized derivative work - unclear wether stuffed animal or sculpture; orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Waiting to exist- oil on canvas- 60 x 47 inches -2006.JPG

File:Waiting to exist- oil on canvas- 60 x 47 inches -2006.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Painting, doubt uploader owns copyright, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

February 3

File:Selectia Nationala 2012.jpg

File:Selectia Nationala 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious {{own}} and {{self}}. Stefan2 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep after I changed the license to {{non-free logo}} with a rationale, and placed it on an article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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⚡ 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Scuttle's Scooters.jpg

File:Scuttle's Scooters.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I think that this image shows quite a lot of outdoor artworks at Tōkyō Disneyland. Artworks are unfree per commons:COM:FOP#Japan. Stefan2 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree, delete.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Similar image on Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scuttle's Scooters at Tokyo DisneySea.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jens Galschiot and Survival of the fattest.JPG

File:Jens Galschiot and Survival of the fattest.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Which country is this and does freedom of panorama really apply? File:Survival of the fattest.jpg shows the artwork in China and this page shows the same artwork at various places in Denmark. Denmark has too restricted freedom of panorama for artworks for Commons. Since the statue seems to be moving once in a while, I don't think that it is correct to state that it is permanently located somewhere, which is a requirement for freedom of panorama to apply in most countries, except possibly for the People's Republic of China where the permanent requirement doesn't seem to apply. Stefan2 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:IEEE plaque NYer-Hotel.jpg

File:IEEE plaque NYer-Hotel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is this too long for {{PD-text}}? Stefan2 (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Too long? Long text is still text Bulwersator (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • But only short sections are short enough to be {{PD-text}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:DPRK Passpot (1950s).jpg

File:DPRK Passpot (1950s).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I doubt that this goes under Article 12 of the copyright law; the passport is likely copyrighted, unless the author died at least 50 years ago. Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• The picture of the passport is taken by me, hence tagged as released to the public. As for the artwork of the passport itself, if the emblem of the DPRK is subject to no copyright as per article 12 of said copyright law, then chances are using it on a document doesn't change that. Not to mention there is another image of a modern DPRK passport that is not subject to any kind of deletions. Seralys (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the picture is subject to article 12. The only legal documents it seems to apply to are "laws and ordinances" (법령), "decisions" (결정) and "directives" (지시) (summarised as "state management documents" / 국가관리문건) and this looks like some other kind of legal document. The words "such as" in the English translation are, I believe, not entirely correctly translated from the original Korean, which uses the word wikt:같은. See also wikt:같다 for the dictionary form of the verb where more information is available. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Then should not all DPRK-related pictures be removed? For example, the picture of the modern DPRK passport, and the DPRK SVG emblem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seralys (talk • contribs) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Centennial logo.jpg

File:Centennial logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• dubious "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide." Bulwersator (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:2011 kcr-logo 300dpi.jpg

File:2011 kcr-logo 300dpi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• dubious "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License." Bulwersator (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:BB7 on the Torch 9860.png

File:BB7 on the Torch 9860.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work" Bulwersator (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ferentillo-Stemma.gif

File:Ferentillo-Stemma.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• dubious "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.", (there is unclear note "see user:Attilios[odp] talk for images from www.araldicacivica.it"), web resolution Bulwersator (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Shimon Cohen Headshot.jpg

File:Shimon Cohen Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• " Bulwersator (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• No reason given. I assume that you think that the author ("The PR Office") suggests that it might be unfree and that OTRS is needed to keep this. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saarang iitm.jpg

File:Saarang iitm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work" Bulwersator (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Greenwave.jpg

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

• No evidence that "This work is irrevocably in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978." Bulwersator (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ishtalinga.gif

File:Ishtalinga.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work" - web resolution. Unused. Bulwersator (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Loyola.jpg

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

• There are 3 images packed into one but anyway all are wrong/copyvios/suspected copyvios
• Current revision - without licence
• Old revision - without source that this portrait is really old
• Older revision - revision lost Bulwersator (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The painting is this, isn't it? Claimed to have been done in 1556. Point at the image with the mouse to see the year of creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I was right, at least in part with my guess of posthumous portrait :). So old revision may stay, current should be deleted Bulwersator (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MA Colonna.jpg

File:MA Colonna.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that this portrait is really old and copyright expired Bulwersator (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Major 18.jpg

File:Major 18.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "It was made by Don Leon[odp] 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)." & "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1923." Bulwersator (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Week keep It looks like to me that "It was made by Don Leon[odp] 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)." was originally typed in as "It was made by ~~~~, which would mean the date in the file description page is the date of the upload from a signature. File is also very similar to File:RWS Tarot 18 Moon.jpg. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • ~~~~ is also confirmed by the edit summary. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Map of Kiev Rus'.png

File:Map of Kiev Rus'.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Contains copyrighted text from the Encyclopediaofukraine.com Chaosdruid (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Dolceforbidden.JPG

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

• This was moved to Commons and then deleted on Commons. I suspect that it should be deleted here too. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dolceforbidden.JPG and Commons:User talk:Eusebius/Archives/2010#File:Dolceforbidden.JPG. The uploader's talk page is full of messages about source and copyright problems. Stefan2 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

February 4

File:Bayonet tony biddle training marines, in parris island sc, 1942.jpg

File:Bayonet tony biddle training marines, in parris island sc, 1942.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

* Current license doubtful but likely PD USGov :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 04:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Keep: Fixed license. See User_talk:Champmasters#Reply_to_.22Photo_of_.27Bayonet_Tony.27_B.C4.B1ddle.2C_1942.22 and User_talk:Jay8g#Photo_of_.27Bayonet_Tony.27_B.C4.B1ddle.2C_1942:Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 00:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Big klu.jpg

File:Big klu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FOP for statues in USA Bulwersator (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, statue was created in 2003. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Crystal 128 kaddressbook-wet-floor.png

File:Crystal 128 kaddressbook-wet-floor.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work", web resolution, orphaned Bulwersator (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:STS088-719-3.jpg

File:STS088-719-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Pradip-3.jpg

File:Pradip-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image seems to be taken from the singer's personal site, on which no copyright information is provided. Yet, the uploader has multilicensed the file under various licenses (in some subtle aspects, these license even contradict themselves). Looking at the history, User:Pradipsomasundaran seems to have added these after a nsd tag. Propose to delete. — Pewfly (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Samarkand Sulci.jpg

File:Samarkand Sulci.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Samarkand Sulci Annotated.jpg

File:Samarkand Sulci Annotated.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:EN Peri-Banu crater2.jpg

File:EN Peri-Banu crater2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:EN Salih crater.jpg

File:EN Salih crater.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:EN Samad crater.jpg

File:EN Samad crater.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cropped from source image: "Voyager 2 Color Image of Enceladus, Almost Full Disk" at Voyager at Saturn : Aug 1980 - Sep 1981

File:EN Gharib crater.jpg

File:EN Gharib crater.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:EN Sindbad crater.jpg

File:EN Sindbad crater.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:EN Shahryar crater.jpg

File:EN Shahryar crater.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Healing hands 04.jpg

File:Healing hands 04.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Orphaned image, found also at http://forum.mind-energy.net/energy-healing-methods/1301-healing-hands-pyramid-energy.html with upload time of 05-13-2010, 09:50 AM - 1h 28min before uploaded here - if we can trust the remote web site's clock - also possibly the same person, but we can't be sure  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:PAIKAR-I-JAMIL.JPG

File:PAIKAR-I-JAMIL.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• orphan, no encyclopedic purposes, possible copyvio Secret ^account 22:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:PagcorCity-Ad.jpg

File:PagcorCity-Ad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• probable copyvio Secret ^account 22:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Pambig3415.jpg

File:Pambig3415.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• artwork Secret ^account 23:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Black beauty sept. 2010.jpg

File:Black beauty sept. 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image match found at http://www.americansongspace.com/ckmusicco/ - I can't see the full size version as you have to be a member.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

February 5

File:STobias sign.JPG

File:STobias sign.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a signature of a living person who holds copyright. The uploader Hornik claims that this is own work. So, this is either NFC and needs FUR or misleading image. Sumanch (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Peter Bebjak sign.JPG

File:Peter Bebjak sign.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a signature of a living person who holds copyright. The uploader Hornik claims that this is own work. So, this is either NFC and needs FUR or misleading image. Sumanch (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hana Hegerova sign.JPG

File:Hana Hegerova sign.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a signature of a living person who holds copyright. The uploader Hornik claims that this is own work. So, this is either NFC and needs FUR or misleading image. Sumanch (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Muzička grupa 43zla iz Beograda, u punom sastavu (2004).jpg

File:Muzička grupa 43zla iz Beograda, u punom sastavu (2004).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a professional shot; same user uploaded another similar professional shot of an artist and claimed it to be self created; this may have been correct but no OTRS permission was provided. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Amunition truck Zuzana.jpg

File:Amunition truck Zuzana.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Similar uploads in the past by the same user were sourced to a third-party: http://www.kotadef.sk, and no proof of permission was provided. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:155mm SpGH Himalaya.jpg

File:155mm SpGH Himalaya.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see above nomination. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:BeerSchlitzBrewing.jpg

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

• This image has a copyright notice: "© 1965 Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co." Such content on a coaster copyrighted after 1963 is still copyrighted per Copyright Renewal Act of 1992; no renewal is required.[20] --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Koraycandemirwiki.jpg

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

• No OTRS permission attached, claim unverified 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 16:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

February 6

File:Letrero Nuevo Cuartel Policia Municipal, Barrio Canas Urbano, Ponce, PR.jpg

File:Letrero Nuevo Cuartel Policia Municipal, Barrio Canas Urbano, Ponce, PR.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Flickr image CC BY-SA 2.0 - but since it's a giant poster, I doubt if that is a valid licence.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• KEEP

You have to be kidding. Exactly where in Wikipedia policies does it state that public community signs paid by taxpayers in a democratically-elected government under the United States flag and announcing a new public structure also paid by the people are copyrighted because they are "giant"? And where does it define the exact dimensions which would qualify a sign as "giant" and, then, where does it allow -presumably, per your argument- non-giant signs to be included in Wikipedia, but not giant signs? No offense, but a "doubt" by a paranoid deletionist is not in itself enough reason for deletion - you have to actually -prove- your argument based on Wikipedia policies.

The fact is this photo of an outdoors sign is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0. The fact is the construction and erection of this sign was paid by the people, as stated and duplicated HERE without paranoical concerns. The fact is CC BY-SA 2.0 is a perfectly acceptable license in Wikipedia. And the fact is there is no Wikipedia policy stating that photos of giant street signs are forbidden in Wikipedia. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Delete It is irrelevant if a poster is giant or not. It is, however, relevant if it takes up a large portion of the photo. See commons:COM:DM for more information. See also commons:COM:FOP#United States and commons:COM:DW which tell that you can't take a photo of anything placed outdoors. Anything produced by the US federal government is free and without copyright, but material produced for most/all municipal governments are copyrighted. This was obviously produced for a municipal government, so there is no reason to assume that the poster is free. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not Commons. Commons rules don't apply here. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
    • Comment This is the law so it applies to all Wikimedia projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, unless the state authorities of Puerto Rico have a no-copyrights rule comparable to the US federal government (which as far as I know they don't), the poster is copyrighted and the photo is a derivative work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the text on the poster, it was not made by the state authorities of Puerto Rico but by the municipal authorities of Ponce, Puerto Rico. I'm not aware of any municipal no-copyright rules, so this is probably unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Exactly. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
• Comment Giant poster or not, what a disruption of the encyclopedia! If the image brings concerns why, instead of paranoically attempting to remove it, why dont you just fix its copyright status. It would consume less time and effort from everyone and would release everyone else to perfom more productive tasks for the building of the encyclopedia. Don't bother,,,, it has already been done, but if you really want to HELP, do the right thing and correct the CR status of the other file on the Parque Ecologico that you also proposed for deletion before I get to it too. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
  • Comment This is not about "fixing" licence tags, this is about not uploading images not allowed here. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment And where is the WP:Assume good faith in all of that? The claim "images not allowed here" is your opinion, an attempt to pass judgment beforehand, a "condemned before proven guilty"; What Wikipedia policy is that? And what other Wikipedia policy states that fair use images are not allowed?

We should work towards BUILDING an encyclopedia and, where an error is perceived, attempt to work together to solve it. Changing the license into the new valid license that I had since provided helps do that and, no offense, but criticizing the well-intended, good faith, work of others doesn't. Worse yet, you relentlessly continue to go on and on with this argumentative "fixing license tags" which disrupts the work even more.

In any event, the license has been changed from the original PD into Fair Use, and PD licensing should now be a moot point, and that should now close this discussion unless the new license is still faulty for some reason. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

But the fair use licensing is also moot since it doesn't comply with WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, then, in this new claim of yours never heard before, exactly what part of nfcc doesn't it comply with, or are you just saying things? Anyone can claim compliance or noncompliance, but defending your point of view is another story. Let's be bold and get down to specifics with claims that are substantiated. This sort of 1-on-1 arguments are not healthy for the building of the encyclopedia; please make your arguments w/o just firing shots and no subtance. I invite you to be bold and discuss your claims with at least the same level of detail that the image's Fair Use page exposes the criteria for fair use validity for everyone to see. Most anyone assuming good faith will note that the information provided there is not trying to cut any corners. Don't leave me (the rest of us?) wandering if your are assuming good faith or not: imo, the fair use criteria HAS been met, but just claiming it hasn't been only for the sake of what may be read as "scoring a WP:POINT" is against Wikipedia's expected behavioral practices. If you think the new license is still faulty for some reason, then I think I am talking for everyone here if I say we expect you to argue on exactly WHICH point it is faulty and why, rather than just "firing with a loose cannon". My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

File:Letrero del Parque Ecologico bajo construccion en Barrio San Anton, Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg

File:Letrero del Parque Ecologico bajo construccion en Barrio San Anton, Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As above  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• KEEP

As above: You have to be kidding. Exactly where in Wikipedia policies does it state that public community signs paid by taxpayers in a democratically-elected government under the United States flag and announcing a new public structure also paid by the people are copyrighted because they are "giant"? And where does it define the exact dimensions which would qualify a sign as "giant" and, then, where does it allow -presumably, per your argument- non-giant signs to be included in Wikipedia, but not giant signs? No offense, but a "doubt" by a paranoid deletionist is not in itself enough reason for deletion - you have to actually -prove- your argument based on Wikipedia policies.

The fact is this photo of an outdoors sign is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0. The fact is the construction and erection of this sign was paid by the people, as stated and duplicated HERE without paranoical concerns. The fact is CC BY-SA 2.0 is a perfectly acceptable license in Wikipedia. And the fact is there is no Wikipedia policy stating that photos of giant street signs are forbidden in Wikipedia. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Delete See above. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Toys R Us Philippines.jpg

File:Toys R Us Philippines.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FoP at all in the Philippines.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question What is the correct way to handle photos of unfree buildings on English Wikipedia? Some get {{FoP-USonly}} (which, combined with a free licence for the photographing task, allows them to be used as a standard free image) while others get {{Non-free architectural work}} (which requires a fair use rationale and limits the usage to fair use). The two templates seem to mean the same thing but lead to different usage terms of the images. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this counts as a photograph of any one "copyrightable" creative work. Neither the architecture nor any one particular element of copyrighted design of the shop seems to be the main topic of the photograph. Making a copyright issue out of this would mean taking the no-FoP position to an absurd extreme. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• I would think the only way for this to stay would be non-free. It's a photo of an obviously new building, so there has to be copyright. It's just a pain that countries don't agree on a common FoP policy - it causes so much confusion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There is still the question about the double templates for this situation (see above): one of them treats the photo as free in the United States (but unfree in the source country) while the other one treats it as unfree everywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Good question. Honestly, I have no idea. It's the first time I even see {{FoP-USonly}}, and I'm not sure its existence was ever vetted by any informed consensus about the legal position expressed there. It's something I've been wondering about myself, but I wouldn't want to answer without a copyright lawyer. Let's put it like this: If a US court were ever to decide in a matter of a copyright infringement claim regarding a photograph of, say, a building in France, I suppose it would look into French law to figure out whether or not the building as such was or wasn't copyrighted in the first place. Fine. But once it has decided the building is in fact copyrighted in France, when it comes to figuring out whether that copyright also entails control over the right to photographic reproduction, would it still look towards French law or would it apply US law? I really don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
      • But that {{FoP-USonly}} links to Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#United_States - which is only about images in taken the USA... So it does not make a lot of sense to me.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I've posted a message at the template's author's page - User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Template:FoP-USonly - I think we need to know if we can apply this template.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Artworks like paintings are subject to copyright, especially if they're new. However, I don't think copyright applies to buildings. Photographers and tourists are often free to take shot at some structures. FoxLad (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Copyright applies to everything - in the US there is a Freedom of Panorama which allows you to take images of buildings, but not sculptures, in the UK you can take pictures of anything outside, in some countries you can take images of buildings outside, but only for non-commercial use, and in some countries there is no exemption for taking images outside (but for own personal use, no one is likely to complain)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Where does it say there's no FoP in the Philippines? FoxLad (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
        • One of the tags mentioned here probably only applies within the US, not outside. FoxLad (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
          • For information about freedom of panorama in different countries, see commons:COM:FOP. The section about the United States mainly deals with US buildings, so it is unclear if it also applies to the use of photos of non-US buildings within the US. Basically, we need to know if the United States ignores non-US copyrights of non-US works when copyright laws differ. This was certainly the case in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and might be the case here too. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

+++++++++++

The section just discussing the {{FoP-USonly}} template and it's use has been moved to Template talk:FoP-USonly - if we come to any conclusions, it's best to keep the talk with the template for future reference. Please continue there.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

+++++++++++

• Keep - About the only thing copyrightable in this photo is the logo, and even that is probably not copyrightable in the US or Philippines per commons:COM:TOO#United States (Philippine law is based on US law, so presumably they are similar). Even if it is copyrightable, it is not the focus of the photo, rather the store is, so it is probably de minimis. Even if it isn't necessarily de minimis, even the foundation lawyer stated in similar cases, it was not worth the effort of worrying (citation). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Gianolibrad'oro.gif

File:Gianolibrad'oro.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image showing a book cover, containing 2D artwork.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• According to [21], it seems the book was published with this same cover from its first edition in 1910, which would mean the design is PD-old. (Without that, I agree we would be dealing with a "non-free book cover" situation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Appears to be valid fair use, so fix the paperwork, rather than deleting a useful image. This has been explained/discussed elsewhere, but Ronhjones has apparently not bothered to listen to what anybody else said. If you look at book articles in Wikipedia, you will find many covers available under fair use. This appears to be a settled matter of policy. I don't understand the bull-in-china shop approach. If the image needs a fair use rationale, how about being helpful (that's what administrators are supposed to be) and try to fix it? Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The trouble about this is that the image had in fact been correctly tagged as non-free book cover at one point, but the uploader removed that tag and was extremely insistent on the (incorrect) PD-self description instead [22][23], failing to realize the status of the photograph as a derivative work. None of the editors involved up to now seem to have considered the PD-old solution, which I believe makes the issue moot. In the absence of this information, this PUF nomination was indeed the correct step to get the – otherwise clearly incorrect – PD-self tag corrected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Or PD old. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• A 2-D work of art originally published pseudonymously prior to 1923 (in fact in 1910) seems unlikely to have any residual copyright in the USA. Giano is therefore free to make a reproduction, which is bound to be in the public domain in the USA. It may be worth noting that the publishers, Collegio Araldico, was founded in 1853 and seems to have adopted the crown of Italy/Savoy as the principal device in its emblem. It is quite dubious that the crown was ever able to be copyrighted by Collegio Araldico in the first place, although it may have fallen into the public domain in Italy by the time Collegio Araldico made use of it. --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• The whole point of a pseudo speedy is to give the uploader 7 days to deal with the problem(s) and put in the correct license. A fair use is probably fine (there are plenty of non-free book covers on WP, I have no issue with fair use), it may be old - but there's no detail on the image page to confirm that, I assume the uploader would know when his copy was published and was it first published in the US? - I was viewing it as an Italian book. When I first tagged it ([24]) it was an image of a book claiming to be a 3D image because it was not just the cover and claiming I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain - If User:Giano was the copyright holder then he would need to release it under OTRS. It obviously not a 3D image in the terms of copyright law, it's still a book cover. Before I added my first tag it had This file has been identified as a priority candidate in the January 2012 Move to Commons Drive (which is why I found it - I was part of the drive, which moved about 16,000 images last month) - If one of the movers had moved this last month, would commons would leave it so, I suspect not. Therefore it makes sense to get the correct templates now - either fair use OR free media which will be fine when moved to commons.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Richie Mensah.jpg

File:Richie Mensah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no exif data; watermarked, uploader has other incorrect "self" claims Skier Dude (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Avril Lavigne showing off a new hairstyle of hers.jpg

File:Avril Lavigne showing off a new hairstyle of hers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image appears to have been taken by Lavigne herself, therefore doubtfully released for free use. Not being used, so doesn't constitute fair-use, and probably wouldn't anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Probable copyvio, unless uploader supplies permission - http://sarahtrademark.tumblr.com/ - image dated 27 January 2012 16:51:15  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Rajendra lahiri.jpeg

File:Rajendra lahiri.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is of extremely poor quality with little information to convey. The authenticity looks dubious and license claims inappropriate. Lovy Singhal (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Santa Ana Volcano.USAF.C-130.2.jpg

File:Santa Ana Volcano.USAF.C-130.2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:EN Isbanir Fossa.jpg

File:EN Isbanir Fossa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Billy Singleton.jpg

File:Billy Singleton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work" (web resolution) Bulwersator (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MIT-Green-Building.jpg

File:MIT-Green-Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a derivative work of The Big Sail by Alexander Calder, (c) 1966[25] GrapedApe (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Anne Triola & John Wayne photo - Without Reservations.jpg

File:Anne Triola & John Wayne photo - Without Reservations.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

* Template says "Without a copyright notice" but file itself says "Copyright 1945" :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 14:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The image uploader requested I comment here. He would like to know if the image is eligible to be licensed under {{PD-US-not renewed}} per the information given at a similar image, File:Vivien Leigh still.jpg. Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I was reading my photograph's information. I felt I had better speak up. I have joined Wikipedia recently about two years ago as a newcomer. I don't have much experience in performing the tasks of using photos to place onto articles as some of the other Wikipedia authors have. I love the new photograph that someone added for John Coltrane - if I might add. With the subject of my Anne Triola photograph which my Mother bought me for Christmas, I was simply trying to match that up with efforts done on other 1940s film stars who have their pictures attached to their Wikipedia biographies. Actress Jane Darwell has two. One of those Darwell photos is an ebay photo just as my Mother bought the Anne Triola photo off ebay as well. The Anne Triola photo is a publicity still by RKO Studios Inc. RKO Studios Inc. became defunct in 1959, so I am thinking the photo can be applicable just as Vivien Leigh's photograph by MGM meets Wikipedia guidelines with similar characteristics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod hayes (talk • contribs)

Hi again, I have emailed RKO Studios Inc. to see about getting help with this photo as far as seeing about getting their help with copyright approval and what-not. I haven't heard back from them yet, but I am keeping my eye on my email to see that I get a reply. I may try calling them if I haven't heard back after a while of waiting. I'll try to get in touch with them the best I can. Rod Hayes (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just giving an additional update... I contacted RKO Studios Inc. today about using their photograph on Anne Triola's Wikipedia biography. I should get an email from them very, very soon. The conversation went well - and they seemed very pleased to know that I have taken the initiative to put together a biography on one of their many actresses which served under RKO Studios Inc. Hopefully, I will here back from them very soon. Rod Hayes (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jay8g, I got in touch with RKO Studios Inc. That went well. Dave Woodard was very concerned about the photograph and was wanting to get in touch with you all directly. I could forward you his email. Anyway, he told me he would take it to his legal team. Now, they have told me to contact Julie Heath of Warner Bros. Anyway, I will get back in touch with you regarding this as soon as I can. Rod Hayes (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Right now, it's push, push. I got in touch with the secretary of Julie Heath with Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. I have sent her a detailed email with the photo attached. It's just sit and wait now. Brian Anderson of RKO Studios Inc. had referred me to Julie Heath, executive director of Warner Bros' Clip & Still Licensing Dept. Hopefully I will here something from her soon. Rod Hayes (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra update: I tried one last time in vain to reach Julie Heath yesterday afternoon at about 4:30 pm ET. I was letting them know that I had had problems with loading info into one of their uploader devices, but Heath's secretary told me that my email with the photograph being attached was sufficient and that Julie could gather what she needed from that. I got home after teaching the little children in PE at school this afternoon and found nothing in my yahoo email from Ms. Heath. I will hit this hard Monday, the next business day. Rod Hayes (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Rod has gotten permission and will send to OTRS:Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 01:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tawker and Sons. and Whiteaway Laidlaw's Co. Ltd . Buildings-1.jpg

File:Tawker and Sons. and Whiteaway Laidlaw's Co. Ltd . Buildings-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no photographer or date of the photo listed, so there is no way to tell if the licence is correct. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:SL-poster.jpg

File:SL-poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious {{self}}. Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ben & Las stn 1905 & 2012.jpg

File:Ben & Las stn 1905 & 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious {{self}}: it is unlikely that the 1905 photographer is the same as the 2012 photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:தமிழ் நண்பர்கள்.png

File:தமிழ் நண்பர்கள்.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't understand what the summary means, so I'm reporting this as possibly unfree instead of reporting this as lacking permission in the event that the text in the summary field explains the copyright situation. I doubt that this is {{self}} (looks like a professional logo) and I don't think that it is ineligible for copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Google translate renders the filename as "Tamil Friends" and the description as "Symbol of Tamil Friends". Neither source nor licensing info. The website mentioned in the file itself seems to be some kind of social networking site, and indeed is using this as a kind of logo. Evidently non-free, unless the uploader can demonstrate they are the owner of that website. No point about "non-free logo", since we don't seem to have an article about the site. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Perur Temple.jpg

File:Perur Temple.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source of the file is stated as 'Dinamalar'. 'Dinamalar' is a daily magazine in Tamil Nadu India and their images are copyrighted and not free. reference (http://www.dinamalar.com). Also the photo has a watermark of the website dinamalar.com. As per wiki rules watermarked photo is not allowed Balaji (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Msc magnifica2.jpg

File:Msc magnifica2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Likely copyvio, web-resolution photo lacking exif data, from known unreliable uploader, unlikely to be own work Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MSC Divina laid down.jpg

File:MSC Divina laid down.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Likely copyvio, from known unreliable uploader. Copyright mark on image, apparently unrelated to uploader's name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Panaitolikos.jpg

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

• The file license is invalid. This file likely meets the threshold of originality and PD-TEXTLOGO therefore does not apply. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

February 7

File:MIDSRL.JPG

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

• I was unable to locate the image Google. But the image looks professionally done and has borders. In addition, The size is so small for such a good picture and lacks metadata. Sumanch (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Gajah Gallery's 15th Anniversary Celebration.jpg

File:Gajah Gallery's 15th Anniversary Celebration.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image contains quite a lot of 2D art. Are all of those things really de minimis? Note that de minimis laws vary from country to country and I don't know how strict Singapore is, but I find it very unlikely that it would pass as de minimis under the Swedish definition. Stefan2 (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Gajah Gallery's 15th Anniversary Celebration (3rd image).jpg

File:Gajah Gallery's 15th Anniversary Celebration (3rd image).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image contains quite a lot of 2D art. Are all of those things really de minimis? Note that de minimis laws vary from country to country and I don't know how strict Singapore is, but I find it very unlikely that it would pass as de minimis under the Swedish definition. Stefan2 (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Ritesh Deshmukh New.JPG

File:Ritesh Deshmukh New.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It looks like the image was cropped from something. The size is small and lacks metadata. Sumanch (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Gajah Gallery's 15th Anniversary Celebration (2nd image).jpg

File:Gajah Gallery's 15th Anniversary Celebration (2nd image).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image contains quite a lot of 2D art. Are all of those things really de minimis? Note that de minimis laws vary from country to country and I don't know how strict Singapore is, but I find it very unlikely that it would pass as de minimis under the Swedish definition. Stefan2 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:B V Kale 1.jpeg

File:B V Kale 1.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a clipping from a news article. I don't believe that the user's edits are consistent with that of a photo journalist's. Sumanch (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Haab's Exterior Sign.JPG

File:Haab's Exterior Sign.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 2D Poster is substantial part of image  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This sign carries the logos of the Motor Cities National Heritage Area and the National Park Service. It seems possible that this is a US federal government work that's ineligible for copyright protection. (If so, the licensing should be corrected to reflect that.) cmadler (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This photo has been flagged for deletion under the misapprehension that it is of a poster. It is not. It is a photo of an historical marker. Wikimedia and Wikipedia are replete with photos of historical markers that have not been flagged. There is an article 'Historical Marker' with several photos of historical markers that have not been flagged. I don't see that any change in the permission is needed.Dwight Burdette (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Both posters and historical markers are copyrighted, so it is irrelevant to know whether it is a poster or a historical marker. However, if it was produced by the US government, the poster/marker is in the public domain, allowing photos of it. The article Historical marker mainly seems to have pre-1978 markers (i.e. published markers) without copyright signs which are in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The National Park Service is a US government agency and Motor Cities National Heritage Area appears to be a part of the park service. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Zamboanga City Collage.jpg

File:Zamboanga City Collage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• A collage without any sources for the images in it. Stefan2 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Vaijnath Shinde.jpg

File:Vaijnath Shinde.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This user has a history of loading non-free material. I found [these images] in Google. Can't tell what came first. Sumanch (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jacque Fresco on Larry King.png

File:Jacque Fresco on Larry King.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I might be wrong, but it looks like a TV programme. Stefan2 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Latur Distict.JPG

File:Latur Distict.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As explained above. It does not appear that the user Jazzradio has created these images. Sumanch (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Latur District 25th Year Anniversary.jpg

File:Latur District 25th Year Anniversary.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It appears to be an image from news media. Sumanch (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Vivekanand Hospital and Research Centre.jpg

File:Vivekanand Hospital and Research Centre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It appears that this is another image uploaded by User:Jazzradio. The image quality is inconsistent with the original file created using a camera. Sumanch (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:LMT Bus.jpg

File:LMT Bus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a poor quality image uploaded by User:Jazzradio. The bus appears to have been prepared for a professional photo op. But I don't believe originals are in possession of Jazzradio. Sumanch (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Latur Municipal Building.jpg

File:Latur Municipal Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another image by User:Jazzradio. Sumanch (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Goldcrest Latur.jpg

File:Goldcrest Latur.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another file by User:Jazzradio. Sumanch (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:SVMCRlogo.PNG

File:SVMCRlogo.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is this really {{PD-textlogo}} or is the thing above the text "St. Vincent's" too complex? Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes no difference to me. I've included a fair use rationale. Mgrē@sŏn 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• 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⚡ 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Alf Wood - Oldham.jpg

File:Alf Wood - Oldham.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Something wrong with the copyright tags: it is both listed as free and as unfree at the same time. It says that the picture was taken "circa 1922" and if it was published before 1923 it is free in the United States at least. Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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⚡ 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Satish.jpg

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

• Military people: See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Satish.jpg. Portrait of a man: uploaded without changing the file information page, so the licence and source are unknown. The sole purpose of the image appears to use it in an article proposed for speedy deletion (see Satish chandra kumar) so the image should probably also be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Romanian compilations.jpg

File:Romanian compilations.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I tagged this as "no permission" but the uploader removed the tag, claiming own work. If the uploader really produced the CD covers, this needs to be recorded in OTRS. If someone else produced the CD covers, this is an unfree derivative work. Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as the photograph was taken by me in my own house, showing musical albums that I bough myself, I can't see the reason for deleting it. If it comes from Mariah Carey's album cover, I may crop, cut or blur it. Just tell me what to do in order to keep the file.Innano1 ^(talk) 4:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC+2)
    • The CD covers are copyrighted. You would have to delete all of them from the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Indianstatisticalinstitutelogo.svg

File:Indianstatisticalinstitutelogo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I tagged this as "no source" and "no licence", but the uploader deleted the tag. He later made this revision of the file which suggests that the logo only is for non-commercial use. Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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⚡ 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Circuit diagram for an intelligent bell.jpg

File:Circuit diagram for an intelligent bell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I tagged as {{di-no source no license}}. The uploader replaced the image with the text "source:there is no copyright issues for this picture" without proving that this is the case. Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Yisrael Mordecai Safeek.jpg

File:Yisrael Mordecai Safeek.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low resolution. No EXIF. Lots of copyright statements on the uploader's talk page (with a "last warning" by User:Ronhjones). Could easily be a reupload of one of the deleted images. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Safeek08-24-09.jpg

File:Safeek08-24-09.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Low resolution. No EXIF. Lots of copyright statements on the uploader's talk page (with a "last warning" by User:Ronhjones). Could easily be a reupload of one of the deleted images. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:BobT6.jpg

File:BobT6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Video game character, unlikely to be free. Also at wikia:tekken:File:BobT6.jpg which also lacks copyright information. Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Marcus-Dillistone-Icehotel-2010.jpg

File:Marcus-Dillistone-Icehotel-2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• {{Self}} and {{information}} seem to disagree about the author. It might be a reupload of one or more of the images mentioned on the uploader's talk page, so this could maybe be speedied. Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Marcus-Dillistone-Icehotel.gif

File:Marcus-Dillistone-Icehotel.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See #File:Marcus-Dillistone-Icehotel-2010.jpg above. This is a dupe and we only need one of them anyway. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Karel2.png

File:Karel2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be unfree software (see the word "copyright" at the bottom of the mentioned web site), but the web site remains in Czech even if I click on the US flag, so I can't read the text. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Please open Terms of Use, there is the following Image Policy: "Anyone can take screenshots from the front page slider as well as from inside of NCLab and all its graphical applications, and use them in any way, as long as the source (NCLab) is mentioned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelSolin (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• When I previously tried looking at the web site, it was only available in Czech (and clicking on any of the flags didn't help: it remained in Czech), so the page was unreadable for me and it was thus impossible to find any terms of use. Now I see that the page has changed so that it is available in English, and so it is possible to find and read the terms of use. The text "Image policy: Anyone can take screenshots from the front page slider as well as from inside of NCLab and all its graphical applications, and use them in any way, as long as the source (NCLab) is mentioned." sounds enough to me. The currently listed licence is wrong, of course. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have fixed the licensing information for this file. --Chris (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Litrato3389.jpg

File:Litrato3389.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of CDs. Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Breeklogoo.png

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

• Derivative work of something. Is the subject of the photo really free? Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Scanning through the uploaders contributions, I've also found File:Breeks,James Wilkinson's Picture at Breeks.jpg. I'm guessing that these are some sort of sculpture (don't know the right term -- possibly frieze?) from Breeks Memorial School. Since the school moved to its current location in 1886 (uncited in the article but no reason not to believe it), it's possible that the original works might be PD. cmadler (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 8

File:Map of Tatrinote.jpg

File:Map of Tatrinote.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It was reported as possibly unfree here (note that the file has been renamed after that), but it seems that the request later disappeared from the PUF page. I'm questioning whether this map really is own work. Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• This map is published by tourism board of AJK government and authorised us to use it whenever and whereever required. Please stop flagging it again. riz 03:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So we have an admission that it is not pd-self - therefore it must have proof of release from the copyright holder via the WP:OTRS process - please follow the link & have the (c) holder follow the instructions there. Skier Dude (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note The uploader keeps reverting any attempts to add a {{puf}} template to the file information page. Currently, he has reverted {{puf}} additions three times in less than 10 hours. The removing of the {{puf}} template does not mean that this discussion has ended; it is still ongoing and no sufficient proof that the image is free has been presented. Because of WP:3RR, I won't add any {{puf}} template again, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mansoor-IJAZ-2007.jpg

File:Mansoor-IJAZ-2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Subject wasn't even alive 100 years ago so the license is obviously bogus. Eeekster (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Versatilesecurity.png

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

• no source for logo; if legit, it would not be a "self" license Skier Dude (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:1 Kcc Cam01 0007.jpeg

File:1 Kcc Cam01 0007.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader doesn't appear to be the copyright holder as claimed by the license tag. Eeekster (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Vnjoat.jpg

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

• The person on signing something was born in 1923 while the photographer was born in 1978[26]. The person on the picture looks young, so this photo was probably taken before 1978. The uploader has uploaded many other copyvios (see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kumarrajendran) so this might also be a copyvio. It could be in the public domain because of age, but there is no way to tell without more information. Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Vnjpmn.jpg

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

• See #File:Vnjoat.jpg above. Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:EmeraldDiamondDVD.jpg

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

• Dubious {{PD-self}}. Also note that the image has been reduced as a fair use image by User:DASHBot. Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Danny n j3t.png

File:Danny n j3t.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Danny n j3t.png. Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hamidul hasan muhsin al-hakim.jpg

File:Hamidul hasan muhsin al-hakim.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious {{PD-self}} Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:PeterUrban.jpg

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

• The text "I received email permission from Julia Urban-Kimberly to use this photo on the Peter Urban article on Wikipedia" sounds insufficient. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is a publicity photo of American GoJu Karate founder Peter Urban. Although I have seen this photo on numerous Karate web sites, this photo came from http://www.americangoju.com/ which is managed by Peter Urban's daughter, Julia Urban-Kimberly. On Feb 8, 2012, I received email permission from Julia Urban-Kimberly to use this photo on the Peter Urban article on Wikipedia. If you wish, I can provide you with a copy of her email. Better yet, I can provide you with her email address then you can verify my email communication with her. (let me know and I'll send it directly to you although it can also be found by poking around the home page of the fore mentioned web site) Neilrieck (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Permission should be sent to OTRS. See instructions at commons:COM:OTRS. Also note that a permission only for use on Wikipedia isn't enough. The image needs to be licensed under a free licence, meaning that most people will be able to use the image for most purposes. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hirosaki Weather Averages.jpg

File:Hirosaki Weather Averages.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Might be copyvio from Japan Meteorological Agency. Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hirosaki Windspeed.jpg

File:Hirosaki Windspeed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Might be copyvio from Japan Meteorological Agency. Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mr. Death press photo 2010.jpg

File:Mr. Death press photo 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I can't find this at the source web site and I can't find any source for the Creative Commons statement. Considering the description, F7 might apply. Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Thirdhallwgh.JPG

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

• The file information page suggests that it might have been copied from [27]. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

the file is not even on the web link i posted that is a picture i have permission to use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkbowen (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Globalclassroom.JPG

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

• The file information page suggests that it might have been copied from [28]. Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

the file is not even on the web link i posted that is a picture i have permission to use

File:Globalart.JPG

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

• The file information page suggests that it might have been copied from [29]. Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

the file is not even on the web link i posted that is a picture i have permission to use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkbowen (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Abbaspurnew.jpg

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

• Previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 22#File:Abbaspurnew.jpg). At first, the uploader claimed that the image was provided by a friend, but now it has changed to state that the uploader took the picture. This sounds unclear and should be removed per the precautionary principle. The uploader keeps deleting any deletion templates, so I think that this has to be reported as possibly unfree so that someone will notice it. Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tatrinote.jpg

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

• Previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 19#File:Tatrinote.jpg). Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Same image, same size, same uploader. No matches found within image searches.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

riz 02:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Stefan2: stop messing around, are you out of your mind, this image was taken by my camera and its my property, so I uploaded it here. I see you have habit of flagging images for no reason except (may be) some kind of sickness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riztech (talk • contribs)

File:Dr. Manuel de la Pila Iglesias from Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg

File:Dr. Manuel de la Pila Iglesias from Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Painting of unknown provenance, certainly not the work of the Flickr user to whose account it is currently sourced. Might conceivably be PD, but needs proper attribution to original painter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• KEEP: To the best of my knowledge the painter himself is unknown and this is why the pic has a Flickr author name but not the painter's. My suggestion is the license be changed to a Fair Use since the man is dead and no original photo can possibly be created. In fact I'll go ahead and change the license since its a painting and not just a photo of a living person. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Changed license HERE to non-free with rationale. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• 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⚡ 06:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think that fair use might be appropriate here. The person has been dead for a long time and unless anyone knows of any other picture of him, this might be the only image we can use. Since he died more than 60 years ago, the painting could easily be PD (e.g. published before 1923, published without a copyright notice or published without renewing the copyright), but there is no way to tell. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:TrevorKidGuitar.jpg

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

• Claimed to be CC-BY-SA from http://www.trevorrabin.net but the source clearly says "All rights reserved. Unauthorized use of all or part of this site is expressly prohibited. Also, uploader has had previous problems with images. Thuresson (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:WGHchemlab.JPG

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

• The file information page suggests that it might have been copied from [31]. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.huckabee-inc.com/images/gallery_k12/image_gallery_waxahachie_03.jpg Science Lab, PHOTO © Paul Chaplo  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Globalcommons.JPG

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

• The file information page suggests that it might have been copied from [32]. Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Globalcafeteria.JPG

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

• The file information page suggests that it might have been copied from [33]. Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 9

File:Warmia.PNG

File:Warmia.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prussian tribes map.png. Note that this only applies to the November 2005 revision of the image. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:World-press-2008.jpg

File:World-press-2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Deleted as a derivative work on Commons and should probably also be deleted here. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:World-press-2008.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Normal 0005.jpg

File:Normal 0005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The description suggests that this is a copyvio. Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• The uploader indicated in his upload summary that he doesn't understand our copyright requirements so I've let him know that, since it's a screenshot from a copyrighted television program, copyright is owned by the studio, not by whoever grabbed it and posted it to http://www.castle-fans.org, which is where he got the image. The license is definitely invalid. It should be {{Non-free television screenshot}} --AussieLegend (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Drinkers Are Warned Again By Coach Yost.jpg

File:Drinkers Are Warned Again By Coach Yost.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't think that this is ineligible for copyright. Since it is from 1933, it might be out of copyright for some other reason, though. Stefan2 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Slavechains.gif

File:Slavechains.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The photo looks recent (for example because it is in colour) so the pre-1923 statement might be wrong. Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Oriental Dragon 2012C.jpg

File:Oriental Dragon 2012C.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per Commons:COM:FOP#United States. It is placed at Kensico Cemetery which opened after 1977 so this item was likely made after 1977. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Shahrdari Bushehr.gif

File:Shahrdari Bushehr.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• City's logo is not likely to be owned by the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jalale Ale Ahmad.jpg

File:Jalale Ale Ahmad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source conflicts with license claim. Uploader has a history of grabbing image from Panoramio. Eeekster (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Azadegan.jpg

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

• Source conflicts with license claim. Eeekster (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Elailineendunge.jpg

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

• CD cover with no evidence the uploader owns the rights. Eeekster (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MasterLiHongzhiInterview1993.jpg

File:MasterLiHongzhiInterview1993.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source clearly contains a different image, may be a mistake? ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:WuhanLecLiHongzhi.jpg

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

• No evidence that the image is licensed under GFDL. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:George Withy by Betty Withy.jpg

File:George Withy by Betty Withy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It seems that the licence only applies to the {{PD-ineligible}} task of scanning the image and not to the image itself. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• The image was drawn by Betty Withy, my mother-in-Law, and photographed by me for inclusion in the article about her (deceased) husband. Original copyright resides with her as the artist and is freely given.andyjohnw

File:Chairmanpcb.jpg

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

• Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Posioslogo.png

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

• Dubious own work. Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MGpadma2aa.jpg

File:MGpadma2aa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Doubtful copyright status, uploader is a serial violator and this image looks, quite frankly, a bit dodgy. Lack of EXIF, nomination made as part of this CCI. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MGR- Pope.jpg

File:MGR- Pope.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per the uploaders own admission (here), he was born in 1978, and this photo was taken in 1986. Therefore I am doubtful about the copyright status of this image, namely his PD-self claim - uploader is a serial violator and nomination is made as part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MGRPposter.jpg

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

• Per the uploaders own admission (here), he was born in 1978, and this photo was taken in 1976. Therefore I am doubtful about the copyright status of this image, namely his PD-self claim - uploader is a serial violator and nomination is made as part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MGRwchakname2222a.jpg

File:MGRwchakname2222a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• While no date is given this looks like an old photograph (going by the poor quality and b/w picture), doubtful copyright status per my reasoning above. Uploader is a serial copyright violator and the nomination is made as part of this CCI. Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic and the file is also orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:P3kanna3R.jpg

File:P3kanna3R.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Per the uploaders own admission (here), he was born in 1978, and this photo was taken probably around 1981 (the subjects year of death, and as this is a funeral picture it figures). Therefore I am doubtful about the copyright status of this image, namely his PD-self claim - uploader is a serial violator and nomination is made as part of this CCI. Acather96 (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kannadasan.gif

File:Kannadasan.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Author differs from uploader, source is given as 'Author'. Tagged non-self gfdl, but no evidence of permission and there is a lack of clarity over who the author of the work actually is. Acather96 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MGR45kar5a.jpg

File:MGR45kar5a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• While no date is given this looks like an old photograph (going by the poor quality and b/w picture), doubtful copyright status per my reasoning above. Uploader is a serial copyright violator and the nomination is made as part of this CCI. Lack of description makes this unencyclopedic and the file is also orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

February 10

File:Ghibli Susuwatari.jpg

File:Ghibli Susuwatari.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Japan has no FoP for 3D or 2D artworks (Not sure if this image is 2D or 3D!)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Since it's in an article about the character, we could use it as a non-free file. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:K2010 09 3277 v01 Col d'Aubisque, Pyrenees.JPG

File:K2010 09 3277 v01 Col d'Aubisque, Pyrenees.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 3D artwork, No FoP in France - I see a date of 1948 - won't be PD until at least 2018 - longer if the creator can be identified.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

* I don't understand this fuss. I took the photograph at the Col d'Aubisque in September 2009 as it shows in the title. In the comments I clearly stated that I both created and uploaded the picture and that I release all copyright worldwide. 1948 is the date the memorial was erected, it has nothing to do with copyright. Chienlit (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• The underlying statue / memorial is also copyrighted. As such, a photograph of it is pretty-much automatically non-free for our standards. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are you seriously saying that you cannot use any photograph of a sculpture in France until 70 years after the death of the sculpture? If so, what about images such as this, this or this from WP Commons? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• When were those made? They should probably all be put up for deletion. France has essentially no FOP, so even a picture of only the glass pyramid at the Louvre would be non-free. There is de minimis, but it could not apply to any of the images you've linked to. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Presumably, you will now go through the entire category on Commons and flag them as well in your passion for deletion. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you read commons:COM:FOP#France which tells what you can and can't do with French buildings and statues. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, that would require taking the time to see which are PD and which are not. I'd much rather create content here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Infringes sculptor's copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The sculptor clearly wished his work to be freely viewed, all over the world, forever, commemorating a prisoner whose maltreatment in a German prison meant that he never saw his homeland again. I may be one small voice crying for freedom and flexibility, but reducto ad absurdum is no way to build an encyclopaedia, and does not reflect the spirit of 1948.Chienlit (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Efrancis.jpg

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

• Doesn't seem to be any CC-licensed pictures on the website, so licensing information is doubtful. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:OphthalmologyClinicBushmich.jpg

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

• Unknown copyright status. Description clearly implies that the uploader is not the copyright owner as claimed in the tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Fly-crop.jpg

File:Fly-crop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source is claimed to be de:Bild:MZ-wikipedia fliege.jpg. The German file was deleted in 2009 because the file was moved to Commons:
• 2009-10-08T10:07:11 JuTa (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte „Datei:MZ-wikipedia fliege.jpg“ ‎ (Eine identische Datei ist auf Commons verfügbar, alle Referenzen wurden ersetzt. Sämtliche Metainformationen wurden korrekt übertragen.)

However, File:A Fly by Matthias Zimmermann.jpg is a completely different photo. The correct one is neither in Commons:Category:Sarcophaga carnaria nor in de:Spezial:Dateien/Matthias Zimmermann as far as I can see. Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kirkby, Geoffrey John, Captain, Royal Navy, CBE, DSC **.jpg

File:Kirkby, Geoffrey John, Captain, Royal Navy, CBE, DSC **.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Wouldn't this need OTRS permission? Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MsJacko,dab.jpg

File:MsJacko,dab.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• From the uploaders talk page, it looks like this has been uploaded multiple times so possibly this should have just been speedied. There is no evidence presented it was released under the licence specified as it doesn't appear the uploader is the copyright holder. Perhaps more importantly, and one of the reasons I'm bringing this here, from Plunderphonics#Plunderphonic (album) it appears likely it's a derived work (or at least the copyright status is disputed) so even the original author can't release it under a free licence. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:F2.large.jpg

File:F2.large.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Actually uses pprohibited licence CC BY NC. :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • My mistake. I'm contacting the corresponding author to request permission per WP:COPYREQ James Estevez (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Passes.jpg

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

• Derivative work. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hamidul hasan.jpg

File:Hamidul hasan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The text "The photo comes from a personally owned album." does not necessary imply "own work". The text "File photo of Maulana Hamidul Hasan" suggests that it is someone else's work. Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Adam Putnam Official.jpg

File:Adam Putnam Official.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image found on site of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which has a copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage Avi (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cluj Arena ensemble.tif

File:Cluj arena by dawn.tif (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Cluj arena by night.tif (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Cluj Arena ensemble.tif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: These three images are clearly attributed with "All rights reserved" in the metadata and there is no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. The CC licence applied by the uploader is restrictive with no modifications permitted which is unacceptable to Wikipedia. Despite information given to uploader he does not appear to understand the copyright issues or what is necessary to verify permission. ww2censor (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Nippon Karate do Renshinkan.JPG

File:Nippon Karate do Renshinkan.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. User has lots of copyvios and the like. Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Karate Poster.jpg

File:Karate Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Likely copyvio from known unreliable uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

February 11

File:Randy Racing 5.jpeg

File:Randy Racing 5.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Credit to Willa Stein 2010 conflicts with license. Eeekster (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:New WWC Logo2.jpg

File:New WWC Logo2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo presumably copyright of the organisation it relates to, uploader appears to have been a role account for the organisation but we have no evidence that the person operating that account had authority to release their logo into the public domain. Logo also includes a montage of other images which may be separately copyrighted. January (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Antranig Fedayee.jpg

File:Antranig Fedayee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No Freedom of Panorama in Armenia per Commons:Commons:FOP#Armenia so why should this be free? Erected in 1999 per List of statues in Yerevan. Many of the other pictures on List of statues in Yerevan is also not free unless I'm wrong here. MGA73 (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't commons. Files do not need to be copyright free in the country of origin and the United States to be listed as free. Files just need to be free in the United States. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No freedom of panorama for public artworks in the United States either, so not free there either. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:IMGP2607.JPG

File:IMGP2607.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The banner on the telephone pole is likely copyrighted. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:NEIU 3.jpg

File:NEIU 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Public artwork in the United States. Looks recent. Note that the file has been overwritten: only the most recent revision is problematic. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Location of Vergadeika.jpg.jpg

File:Location of Vergadeika.jpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is this really own work? Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Lucretia - Rembrandt 1664 - Wash DC.jpg

File:Lucretia - Rembrandt 1664 - Wash DC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See commons:COM:ART#When should the PD-Art tag not be used?. There is a 3D frame at the bottom. There doesn't seem to be any English Wikipedia version of commons:Template:Non-free frame. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:McNeeRanch-MontaraStateBeach-TrailheadSign.jpg

File:McNeeRanch-MontaraStateBeach-TrailheadSign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No freedom of panorama for maps in the United States. See commons:COM:FOP#United States. Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:TonyHey-EducauseAU07.jpg

File:TonyHey-EducauseAU07.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I don't think that the background is de minimis. Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a policy you're pointing to? I'm happy to crop it further if required. I took the picture, Tony knew what it was for - I'm not sure I understand the "unfree" complaint here? Natebailey (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

See commons:COM:DM for an explanation of de minimis. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

February 12

File:Gruntgame1.png

File:Gruntgame1.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears that the copyright owner is Grunt board game. Sumanch (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Shin packet.jpg

File:Shin packet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging. Acather96 (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:KIMT Storm Team 3.png

File:KIMT Storm Team 3.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I have searched the entire website for KIMT-TV (the television station associated with this image) and haven't found this image on that site. The user who uploaded this image claims he is the copyright holder (he released it under CC-BY-SA 3.0). If this was an actual image from KIMT-TV, he could not release it via CC. I feel this image was created by the user and not by the television station itself and as such should be deleted. Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC) 13:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:MaggiBoerewors Kitsnoedels 20100605.jpg

File:MaggiBoerewors Kitsnoedels 20100605.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:CupNoodle.jpg

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

• Unauthorized derivative work of products/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:HEDGEHOG CRISPS.jpg

File:HEDGEHOG CRISPS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:McCoys Crisps.jpg

File:McCoys Crisps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Boost-old-new.jpg

File:Boost-old-new.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of products/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cornetto box.jpg

File:Cornetto box.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Chimpmunkey.jpg

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

• Unauthorized derivative work of toy/product/mascot Acather96 (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Moonkey.jpg

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

• Unauthorized derivative work of product/toy/mascot Acather96 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Comfort Fabric Conditioner 750ml Blue - Professional (Medium).jpg

File:Comfort Fabric Conditioner 750ml Blue - Professional (Medium).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Golden gaytime box.jpg

File:Golden gaytime box.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unauthorized derivative work of product/packaging Acather96 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ManualCrown06-05-26b.jpg

File:ManualCrown06-05-26b.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image source: [34] According to Wikipedia, "this is a photograph taken by a member of the Kudzu Coalition who allows it to be freely distributed without restrictions". Unfortunately, there is no OTRS number and I can't find any statement about this at the source web site (this page only says "All rights reserved"). Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Falkorvisit.jpg

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

• See commons:COM:FOP#Germany: freedom of panorama only appears at publicly accessible places (accessing a film studio probably requires special permission) and only applies outdoors as far as I understand. Besides, the thing here is unlikely there for permanent display. Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Footer

Today is February 12 2012. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 12 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:puf log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===February 12===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Possibly unfree files page (the one you're on now) work.