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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work using card back taken from the TV show Card Sharks, it would be replaceable with a fair-use claim. LGA _talk^edits 00:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsurprisingly easy to replace with a free version (i.e., an actual photograph of a deck of cards arranged into this layout). Redundant to the article in which it is used due to the presence of File:GNOME Aisleriot Solitaire.png. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the image but for some reason it's showing up upside down thanks to a glitch in the system. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new version contains the image of the Bicycle card back, making this a non-free derivative work that is still replaceable. (It's also of rather poor quality.) --Kinu ^t/_c 01:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Derivative work of playing cards of unknown origin. Can be replaced by a photo of playing cards which are old enough to be in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tommy-Johnson pre-1923.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is a scan from a book and that the photo is in the public domain in the United States because the photo was published before 1923. However, it doesn't say which book it was published in, so there is no way to verify that the photo indeed was published before 1923. See also Commons:Commons:Service d'aide#auteur anonyme (in French). Stefan2 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I found the book. There is a mistake : the photography was taken probably in 1928 or 1929 (when Tommy Johnson recorded songs for Victor Records). Below the photography it reads Reproduced from Victor Records publicity photo In David Evans, Big Road Blues : Tradition and Creativity in Folk Blues,University of California Press, 1982, p. 183. (Sorry for my english, I'm French), Amicalement, --Tanguy Olivier (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep - uncoyprightable. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:New York Empire Gold License Plate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative copy of a NY State License Plate. The NY DMV claims copyright over it's website so absent a statement otherwise presumably over their licence plate design. LGA _talk^edits 02:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a fair use rationale has been added. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you asserted it was your work when you uploaded it, can you confirm that was not correct ? LGA _talk^edits 02:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I uploaded, most license plate images were GFDL-tagged and rarely disputed. Now that you're disputing them, I have to make sure all of my images are properly tagged so they stay on their articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way to avoid this is to properly tag the images when they are uploaded, not to simply claim they are GFDL compatible because of the belief that no one will scrutinize the tags. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:06, 4 March 2013 (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⚡ 03:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only thing which could be remotely copyrightable here seems to be the map (or whatever it is) in the middle. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Probably not even that, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on commons:Commons:Derivative works#Maps, a simple outline of the state of New York is certainly ineligible for copyright. (A mere embodiment of facts with no creativity is not copyrightable.) I don't see any way that this license plate design passes a threshold of originality. Since the license plate is a 3D object, the photo itself is copyrightable, but the uploader/author has published it under an acceptable license. It looks fine to me to keep as free unless I'm truly missing something here. I tried to find a discussion about license plate copyrights on Commons and found this undeletion request - File:NJ 2008.jpg is practically identical to this one in terms of originality and it was undeleted there. So this image seems fine to me to change back to free. --B (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Dianna (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tipasa remain 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-created, but Flickr is given as the source, and the source Flickr page [1] says "© All Rights Reserved". —Bkell (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: The Flickr image is of a lower resolution than the image uploaded here; the Wikipedia upload was made within a couple days of the Flickr upload; and the same Wikipedia user uploaded another image associated with the same Flickr account, also at a higher resolution than the Flickr source, on the same day. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gate entering Tipasa.JPG. This is enough to convince me that the Wikipedia user and the Flickr user are the same person. —Bkell (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tepasa findings.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged {{PD-Italy}}, which states, "If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A)." But according to the file description, this photograph was published in (not before) 1976, and it was published in an encyclopedia, which I would assume had a copyright notice (in any case there is no evidence it was published without a copyright notice). So there is no evidence that this image meets the criteria described in the {{PD-Italy}} tag. —Bkell (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. The permission for this license is missing. Leyo 21:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:FERDAUS.LICENSE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Although the uploader claims a generic public domain, no rationale for such licensing conditions is provided. Although in the US, a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code is in the public domain, this is not the case, as it's the State of Massachussets the one creating the picture. Ecemaml (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand why you are doing this. Please stop. License photos are in the public domain. MDEVER802 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What should I stop? As explained, it's you the one that must explain why said pictures are in the public domain. It they came from any agency or department of the federal government, they'd be in the public domain. However, that's not the case. So, why do you claim they're in the public domain? --Ecemaml (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no reason to assume that this picture is PD, if it was taken by the subject (in for example a photo booth) then copyright would be theirs, if it was taken by the Massachusetts RMV then copyright would be theirs, so absent proof it is PD then it should be deleted. LGA _talk^edits 10:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Could a fair use exemption apply? --Ecemaml (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the guy is alive then a free image could still be created or found so would fail WP:NFCC#1. LGA _talk^edits 19:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, exceptions are often made if a person is in prison since it is assumed to be too hard to take photos of people in prisons. In this case, the photo might be irreplaceable until he is released in 2026, unless there is a way to take photos of prisoners in that prison. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given he is in a federal prison, any 'official' photograph taken by them will be PD so we can be almost certain that one exists, its just a case of getting a copy of it. LGA _talk^edits 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The uploader indicated that this was taken by the state government, not by the federal government. There is no way to verify this, though, due to {{bsr}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gary Ridgway 1982 Mugshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Although the uploader claims a generic public domain, no rationale for such licensing conditions is provided. Although in the US, a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code is in the public domain, this is not the case, as it's the King County Sheriff's Office the one creating the picture. Ecemaml (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a mugshot, which is public domain. Once again, please stop. MDEVER802 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a source can be provided confirming PD status as it would fail the NFCC. LGA _talk^edits 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The press uses mugshots in their stories all the time. I don't see how this is any different. I am not stealing anyone's ideas or anything like that and no one is being hurt, so this is a complete waste of time. MDEVER802 (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weissberg familija.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader claims to be the creator of this image, with a date of 2/14/2013. But these are photographs of people killed in 1942 in a concentration camp in the Second World War; see Leib Weissberg. It is very unlikely that the uploader created these photos. —Bkell (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• When the uploader wrote that he created this himself, he might have meant that he scanned the photos and combined them into one image and added the captions below. However, what we need is permission from the people who took these photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As I stated before, Rabbi Weissberg family photos that I own are a copy of the originals dated from 1939 given to me by my late grandparent. Those photos were combined into one for the purpose of Rabbi Weissberg article on the Wikipedia. What license is and if any is appropriate in this case I don't know. Best regards --Bbrezic (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need permission from the heir of the photographer, not from the owner of the physical photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately I don't have that permission, since I don'tknow who took them. I don't think that no one who holds any form of family photos has permission from the studio or photographer who took them.--Bbrezic (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not licensed correctley, no bar to a Fair Use claim. LGA _talk^edits 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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