Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 6

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep with corrected templates. Dianna (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WABC-Survey-1961-03-02A.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not the work of the uploader but of WABC radio. No proof this is in the PD We hope (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but not for reasons that anyone's put forth before now. Note that the scan encompasses the entire poster. You'll see no copyright notice on this side, and I don't believe that a copyright notice on the back would suffice (you had to put copyright notices in specific prominent places, which would include the front of a poster), so this should be retagged as {{PD-US-no notice}} instead of being deleted. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep with corrected templates. Dianna (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marshal-Bill-Deputy-Card.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not the work of the uploader but of Channel 5. No proof this is PD. We hope (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reasons that I gave for File:WABC-Survey-1961-03-02A.jpg — this bears no copyright notice. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill-Owen-Press-Kit-Photo-1-lo-res.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not the work of the uploader; no proof it's PD. We hope (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill-Owen-writer-announcer-portrait-1.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader didn't take the photo. Claims photographer gave release, but we have no proof of that. We hope (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill-Owen-and-Rosemary-dancing-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader didn't take the photo. A release is claimed but we have no record of that. We hope (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nesting eagles in Lincoln Park, West Seattle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image of two eagles without context is not irreplaceable, what does "given to us as a gift" mean in the upload description? Brianhe (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olivia Louvel By Alan Wilder.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looking at this file and File:Paul Kendall By Igor Dvorsky .jpg, there looks like 2 different copyright holders-Alan Wilder and Igor Dvorsky. Not sure there's enough proof of PD status. We hope (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Kendall By Igor Dvorsky .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looking at this file and File:Olivia Louvel By Alan Wilder.jpg, there looks like 2 different copyright holders-Alan Wilder and Igor Dvorsky. Not sure there's enough proof of PD status. We hope (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dianna (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israeli Brigade Commander Citation.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because It was released to public by Israel Defence Forces (IDF) official website, as of Israeli Government official publication, such as Military Ribbons images, are public domain under Israeli Copyright law" but without source, this case is not mentioned on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-IsraelGov Bulwersator (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the website of the IDF, go all the way to the very bottom and click "some rights reserved." It will take you to this page, which allows for sharing the picture. --Activism1234 01:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image comes from one web page and the Creative Commons statement comes from a different web page. I can't read the text on the source web site, so I can't tell if there is any information about the copyright status of the images hosted on the source web site. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source page shows צבא ההגנה לישראל © 2012 כל הזכויות שמורות; Google translates as Israel Defense Forces © 2012 All rights reserved. Deleting. - Dianna (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dianna (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israeli Divisional Commander Citation.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because It was released to public by Israel Defence Forces (IDF) official website, as of Israeli Government official publication, such as Military Ribbons images, are public domain under Israeli Copyright law" but without source, this case is not mentioned on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-IsraelGov Bulwersator (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the website of the IDF, go all the way to the very bottom and click "some rights reserved." It will take you to this page, which allows for sharing the picture. --Activism1234 01:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image comes from one web page and the Creative Commons statement comes from a different web page. I can't read the text on the source web site, so I can't tell if there is any information about the copyright status of the images hosted on the source web site. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source page shows צבא ההגנה לישראל © 2012 כל הזכויות שמורות; Google translates as Israel Defense Forces © 2012 All rights reserved. Deleting. - Dianna (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Dianna (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israeli Head of Regional Command Citation.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because It was released to public by Israel Defence Forces (IDF) official website, as of Israeli Government official publication, such as Military Ribbons images, are public domain under Israeli Copyright law" but without source, this case is not mentioned on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-IsraelGov Bulwersator (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the website of the IDF, go all the way to the very bottom and click "some rights reserved." It will take you to this page, which allows for sharing the picture. --Activism1234 01:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image comes from one web page and the Creative Commons statement comes from a different web page. I can't read the text on the source web site, so I can't tell if there is any information about the copyright status of the images hosted on the source web site. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source page shows צבא ההגנה לישראל © 2012 כל הזכויות שמורות; Google translates as Israel Defense Forces © 2012 All rights reserved. Deleting. - Dianna (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:IraqP79-1Dinar-1992 f.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without data about author and date. Bulwersator (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Janice Harsanyi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because Photo is of a deceased person. The origin of the photo is from the family, scanned by the user. Creator is unknown. Assistance is required if the photo is tagged with wrong license. Contact Noles1984[odp]. No other specific tag applies"

Unfortunately "There is no owner for copyright" is untrue, there is no mention that author of photo released picture to public domain. Bulwersator (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Dianna (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "This file is in the public domain, because UN Map from report published in 1947 " Bulwersator (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is taken from an appendix to a General Assembly resolution. Look at {{PD-UN}} — a General Assembly resolution is surely an "official record", and the digital version of the resolution marks it with a UN logo, so this is clearly an example of "United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol". Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israel Chief Of Staff Citation.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This file is in the public domain, because It was released to public by Israel Defence Forces (IDF) official website, as of Israeli Government official publication, such as Military Ribbons images, are public domain under Israeli Copyright law" but without source, this case is not mentioned on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-IsraelGov Bulwersator (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the website of the IDF, go all the way to the very bottom and click "some rights reserved." It will take you to this page, which allows for sharing the picture. --Activism1234 01:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The IDF clearly do release their blog under a WP-acceptable license, but this isn't taken from their blog. It comes from a subpage of http://www.idf.il, and that website's copyright statement says nothing about copyright except for noting that the website's contents are protected by copyright. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unclear if own work: low resolution, no EXIF data, only upload by user. Leyo 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Dianna (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Without source that allows verification of licence and description Bulwersator (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? The source is listed and is in the public domain as it is a mug shot, taken by law enforcement.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is specified author, but there is no way to verify this without link to page that confirms this/publication/ID of this photo in the collection of photos or any other form of source Bulwersator (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There doesn't need to be an online link, per WP:PAYWALL, only a source listed. This is obviously a bigger problem than with just one image. ANI will sort this out.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would say that the source is sufficient. See the text on the image: "California prison". This implies that the photo was taken by a prison in California. Prisons in California would be operated by the state of California, by the US federal government or by some local city or county government somewhere in California. I'm not sure exactly how US prisons operate, but I would assume that they are operated by some kind of government at some level. In either case, the image is PD (either {{PD-CAGov}} or {{PD-USGov}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It is public domain per the source. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unless this be a federal work, it is clearly PD-CAGov. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To any admin who happens to read this "nomination", just to disclose all information, the user who "nominated" this file for deletion, has now been topic banned from nominating any more files for deletion, because it was determined by a majority vote, that he has been abusing the nomination process and nominating images under false rationales.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naga-Waukee Ice Arena.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged {{PD-USGov}}, but this image was not created by the United States federal government. The source page [1] has a link at the bottom to an "acceptable use policy" [2], which says in part, "The material is for the noncommercial use of the general public. The fair use guidelines of the U.S. copyright statutes apply to all material on the Waukeshacounty.Gov and linked agency web sites. Waukesha (County) shall remain the sole and exclusive owner of all rights, title and interest in and to all specifically copyrighted information created and posted for inclusion in this system. Photographs and graphics on the Waukesha County Web site are the property of the County and the County Department that holds a license to use and display the material." There is no evidence that the copyright holder of this photograph has released it into the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; neither Wisconsin nor Waukesha County are part of the US federal government, so PD-USGov is irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Uploader's explanation of source is 'Friend made it'. No evidence of permission Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quality is low anyway. --Leyo 16:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This shouldn't be a copyright issue, since it's just a simple colourised form of a structural formula (and structural formulae get tagged with {{PD-chem}}), but its quality is low enough that essentially any other diagram of this molecule should be preferred over it. That's why we have File:Saccharose2.svg, for example. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• After reading Eduard Imhof I don't think that the license template is correct. Leyo 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why not? Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seems that was neither published before 1923 nor in the U.S. --Leyo 11:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Med Faithfol Serv NPA big-mr.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The medals don't have any valid licence template.

Also: § 5 Abs.1 UrhG appears to apply only to literary works (see discussion at Commons:Commons talk:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review), so a licence claim based on that might not work. Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Valid OTRS ticket. —Bkell (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Uploader claims to be the creator but also provides a URL [3] as the source. —Bkell (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, note that all of the following similar images from the same uploader and having the same source URL have OTRS tags:
    • File:Turkish samovar 1-1.jpg
    • File:Turkish samovar 1-2.jpg
    • File:Turkish samovar 1-3.jpg
    • File:Turkish samovar 2-1.jpg
    • File:Turkish samovar 2-2.jpg
    • File:Turkish samovar 2-3.jpg
    • File:Turkish samovar 3-1.jpg
    • File:Turkish samovar 3-2.jpg

  So the lack of an OTRS tag on this image could be just an oversight. Can anyone here see if this OTRS ticket is valid, and whether it applies to File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg too? Otherwise I can post a request at the OTRS noticeboard. —Bkell (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#File:Turkish samovar 3-3.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to madman at the OTRS noticeboard, the OTRS ticket that applies to the other images is valid and also applies to this one. So I've added the OTRS ticket number to the file description page. Everything should be good now. —Bkell (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Source claimed to be ro:Fișier:Tel.jpg. File at Romanian Wikipedia deleted with the reason "Copyright violation: imagine fără date". I take it that this one also should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; a copy of or a derivative work of a copyvio is a copyvio itself. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. By the way, there's a file with the same name on theCommons, on a completely unrelated topic. Dianna (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unidentified building. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• See here; it's one of the Palladian Villas of the Veneto. Do you have some sort of copyright objection to this image? Your nomination statement sounds much more like an FFD nomination than a PUF nomination. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that I accidentally took the file to the wrong discussion page. Looking a bit more, I found this page which has something which might be a higher resolution copy of the file, although it is hard to tell due to the low resolution of the copy on Wikipedia. According to the Internet Archive, the file was present at least as early as March 2006, and the Wikipedia upload is from August 2006. This may mean that there now is a copyright concern. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, delete. I wouldn't object to its remaining here simply because of its low resolution and currently-unused status, since it could be moved to Commons (who knows; we may have no other images of this specific villa), but the venezia.net image that you linked is almost certainly the source. The proportions are identical, the colors are just right, and the elements shown at different places (e.g. the precise spots on the arches and the gable where the edges of the photo are located) are exactly the same. Almost certainly a copy from there, and PUF is the best place for situations of "almost certainly a copy". Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jubl hal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged {{cc-by-3.0}}, but Flickr source page [4] says "All Rights Reserved". —Bkell (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Some e-mail correspondence is quoted on the file information page. I don't think we've got a proper GFDL permission here. The subject of the photo says that "I would be delighted to have my photo included." However, this doesn't look like a confirmation of the licence. Besides, I suppose that the copyright wouldn't be held by him but by the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taiwanarmspic1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The original USC source link [5] is dead, and Archive.org doesn't have a copy, but I think the URL has just moved to [6]. In that article the caption for this photo says, "Photo by Buddy8d, used under Creative Common license." But which Creative Commons license? After a bit of detective work, I think I found the original Flickr source [7]: it's plainly the same image, dated earlier than both the USC article and the Wikipedia upload, and the Flickr user is Buddy8d. But the Flickr page indicates that this image has been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license, not the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as is claimed on the file description page here. "NonCommercial" and "NoDerivs" are not free enough for Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hnarn01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-created, but sourced to [8], and a fairly ominous copyright warning is given: "BABYLON 5, CRUSADE and LEGEND OF THE RANGERS names, characters and all related indicia are the property of J. Michael Straczynski and Warner Brothers, a division of Time Warner Entertainment Company. All rights reserved. THE B5/CRUSADE SPOILER JUNKIES PAGE and all associated web pages ©1996-2007 Becky Murphy. Do not reproduce this page *anywhere* without author's express permission. All rights/bytes reserved. Any unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited by law without the express permission of the author/designer." This is a screenshot of Babylon 5, right? —Bkell (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if it's a screenshot. I have the DVDs and can check... but the image doesn't reference where it might be from. There are a couple of Narn-centric episodes, but I really don't see the effort as worthwhile, given the rather nondescript nature of the image. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.