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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No, it cannot be speedied. It is the same image, but the deletion was inappropriate — the uploader claimed to be the author, but it was deleted with the {{Di-no permission}} template, which only allows the deletion of images of which the uploader does not claim to be the author. Unless a source image is found to establish this as a blatant copyvio, this image does not qualify for speedy deletion. No opinion on whether or not it should be deleted here. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No, it cannot be speedied. It is the same image, but the deletion was inappropriate — the uploader claimed to be the author, but it was deleted with the {{Di-no permission}} template, which only allows the deletion of images of which the uploader does not claim to be the author. Unless a source image is found to establish this as a blatant copyvio, this image does not qualify for speedy deletion. No opinion on whether or not it should be deleted here. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Dubious source and author. Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[2]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of a book or catalogue. Stefan2 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[3]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't think that the poster is permanently installed on that wall, so freedom of panorama likely doesn't apply. Furthermore, it is not clear whether it is in a country which allows freedom of panorama of indoors 2D objects or not. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader deleted the PUF template and added the notice "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". "Åbäke" is definitely not a personal name and besides there is no source of permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't think that the poster is permanently installed on that wall, so freedom of panorama likely doesn't apply. Furthermore, it is not clear whether it is in a country which allows freedom of panorama of indoors 2D objects or not. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[4]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of books. Stefan2 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[5]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of a CD. Stefan2 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[6]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Presumably taken from somewhere, not sure where. Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[7]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of a booklet. Stefan2 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[8]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of various things. Stefan2 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[9]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of books/booklets/magazines. Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[10]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of a book. Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[11]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unclear if "Kajsa" and User:Charlie-jayne are the same. If not, no source of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The user deleted the PUF template and added the statement "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". "Åbäke" is obviously not a personal name (see other reports above) so this is unsourced and without permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unclear if freedom of panorama applies since the country of the statue isn't given. Uploader has uploaded plenty of images and seems to have used a new camera for each image (according to the EXIF), so {{self}} statement is dubious. Stefan2 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unclear if the uploader is the photographer. The uploader's images with EXIF all specify different camera models. Most people only use one or two cameras, not a dozen of them. Stefan2 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The page states: "For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Åbäke along with the license information". Åbäke is not a personal name but a noun which you can find in a dictionary[12]. Due to its negative meaning, no one would ever dream about using it as a name for their children. Besides, this is the kind of image which would typically need OTRS permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Åbäke is an "an international art & design group," so there's nothing inherently suspicious about that. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ÅBÄKE). I think there's a good chance that Charlie-jayne (talk · contribs) is legitimately connected to ÅBÄKE, so unless we can find evidence of previous publication of these images, then we should WP:AGF that the uploader is legit. Further, the source and permission descriptions on these images do not look like your typical {{own work}}-happy copyright scofflaw.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought about it again: probably {{npd}} situation, because sourced elsewhere and no permission.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:06, 1 February 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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Gee, thanks guys. It looks like consensus does work pretty well in wiki-land after all. And what are all those sopa, pipa and acta people on about? None of them have tried to upload their own photo of themselves to Wikipedia, that's for sure! Thanks go to you, the copyright-upholders, for protecting the whole thing from the law courts. Well done peeps. XX Cath. CathMontgomery (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• web resolution; all other uploads by JamaicanMD (talk · contribs) were copyvios. Lupo 07:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Without source :( Bulwersator (talk) 11:10, 31 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This image, a professional publicity headshot of an actor, fails OTRS confirmation of its permission. The EXIF states that the author is "Jason Kirk/Dailyceleb.com [phone number redacted]." But, see Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#Confirmation for File:ChristianKeiber Celebrity Image.jpg, where the uploader is not the photographer and the uploader is unable to give a credible account that he is either the actual copyright owner or is otherwise authorized to make the release. According to the uploader, "I know Christian Keiber and he gave me his head shot to post...He owns the headshot and it is not necessary to credit the photographer." That certainly isn't enough to prove free license release. GrapedApe (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: OTRS ticket removed, as the emailer is not the photographer.Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#Confirmation for File:ChristianKeiber Celebrity Image.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 2: Still no legitimate OTRS ticket release from uploader. [13]--GrapedApe (talk) 12:41, 13 February 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 as G7 by Atama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative of probably unfree book Bulwersator (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Yes. this was uploaded, I think, as part of some discussion. It is not a free image. Carptrash (talk) 16:03, 31 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:09, 31 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "The photo is hereby released for fair use" Bulwersator (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• etc - see User:Multichill/top_self_uploaders/Azurdia1954 Bulwersator (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of them could easily be {{PD-USGov}} but there is no easy way to tell... --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work" - web resolution, used here (smaller version) Bulwersator (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[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; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep, this file is just citing Krenek's theory, i.e. the ideas developed in his work, but not his creative form of expression of them. Ideas, facts, theories etc. are not copyrightable as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh, yes, sorry! I should have checked this better. I don't think that there is any problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[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; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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