Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26

File:Calibre e-book viewer.png

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted cover. I suggest that the author make another screenshot using a public domain book. Sandstein 06:20, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:LaBreaTigers.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep Skier Dude (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

According to the licensing information on these images, these are in the public domain because the copyright was not renewed. If they're accurate scans, then they wouldn't gain an additional copyright by virtue of the scanning, per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Is there any reason to believe the copyright was renewed? — PyTom (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Los Angeles Airport, 1931.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional argument above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orange Harvest.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SaugusRodeo.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ShakespearBridge.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shriners, 1925.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Slick Chicks.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:StaMonica1931.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:StaMonica1949.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torch Song premiere.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Traffic Jam,1953.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RETAIN. This photo is from the defunct LA Daily News, which failed to renew any of its copyrights, per [1]. PD for nonrenewal. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USAAC,1930.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wrigley Catalina.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wrigley Mansion .jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:XmasParadeLA,1940.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: keep (see additional arguments above) Skier Dude (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image from UCLA Digital Library's LA times photo library, which is CC-By-NC-SA, which is incompatible. Not enough context in article to justify switching to a non-free usage of the image (shrinking size, appending fair-use rationale, etc.). See Previous discussions at

- Optigan13 (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-renewed and expired copyright of the LA Times, per Tillman and per Pytom and per this site. This looks like a bogus copyright claim by UCLA in my opinion. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vsevolod Meyerhold.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source site is insufficient to prove PD under new Russia laws Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:Evgenia ginzburg.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

according to [2], an image where her face appears similar (i.e., same age) is ~1930, and not PD in US unless we can figure out the author and he died a few years later Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:Mikhoels with sig.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3], likely not in PD in US or Russia Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:SimonDubnow.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G6 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1922, not free in Russia likely either Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine.

Keep--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you support that? Don't forget WP:JUSTAVOTE. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.155.232 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (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.

File:MeetingofaVillagePartyCell.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD in US Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:Franz Lehar.jpg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems just as likely as not that the postcard is post-1922 Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:Untitled100fantasiaSTILL.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

claims to be from artist Josh Azzarella, no proof uploader is artist, (c) holder, or that it was released under a cc license, no web-source Skier Dude (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a screen shot of a film. Change license to Licensing - Non-free film screenshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.54.150 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2009 (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.

File:Untitled15TankMan.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

claims to be from artist Josh Azzarella, no proof uploader is artist, (c) holder, or that it was released under a cc license, no web-source Skier Dude (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:"Riven Rock" wine label by Alden Marin.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to believe that the uploader holds the copyright. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:Poet and painter Alden Marin.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that the uploader holds the copyright. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:38, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:"Little Nuts" by Alden Marin (poet).jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that the uploader holds the copyright. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:39, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:Image_name.ext

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason Mpress1 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC) This is my image is can be used as long as it is credited.[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.

File:Image_name.ext

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "Image_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reason Mpress1 (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC) This is my image and can be used as long as it is credited.[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.

File:R99a b.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no longer able to confirm copyright status - website used as source no longer active. Admrboltz (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (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.

File:Lady ScotlandMarch2000.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

scan/photograph of part of a painting (dated March 2000) credited to U. K. Reunov, uploaded by User:Rodolph with licensing that claims he is the 'creator of this work' - no evidence of permission. Memphisto (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALL evidence is here and it is clearly okRodolph (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is evidence? What are you trying to prove?Rodolph (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone share the substance of the OTRS ticket? Is the claim that Rodolph is the painter or merely the one who imaged the painting? If he does claim to be the painter, what's the issue? Just about all self-published works here are taken with a measure of faith, aren't they? -Rrius (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the OTRS ticket, but User:Rodolph has never stated that he is the artist U.K. Reunov. Another painting by U.K. Reunov ValerianFreyberg1999.jpg was submitted by Rodolph with a similar lack of permission and was deleted. Memphisto (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another of User:Rodolph contributions: File:LordGrantchester by UKReunov 1999.jpg, which I have also listed as possibly unfree. Memphisto (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2009 (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.