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⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wenger by opel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like a photo of a drawing, the drawing is signed and does not look like it is "visavavit" so it lacks consent. Mtking ^(edits) 04:04, 21 April 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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of non-free DVD covers. — ξ^xplicit 05:28, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:GLT Tugs 1977.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Admiral towing U.S. Naval Vessel in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Other uploads by the same person are claimed to be "from The Great Lakes Group's photograph archive". No such statement on these two images, but it seems plausible that this also is the case here. If so, these images need OTRS permission. Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clif Bar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's a photograph of a very complicated label. Isn't the label under copyright? 86.** IP (talk) 16:21, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mort Fertel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploaded by sockmaster and paid group account Expewikiwriter, which puts the truth of the Creative Commons licensing in doubt, given some of the other things he's sourced, e.g. File:Leonore Omalley First be a woman album cover.jpg, which has a blogspot notice on it. 86.** IP (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:45, 24 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:David R. Stokes standing.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploaded by sockmaster and paid group account Expewikiwriter, which puts the truth of the Creative Commons licensing in doubt, given some of the other things he's sourced, e.g. File:Leonore Omalley First be a woman album cover.jpg, which has a blogspot notice on it. 86.** IP (talk) 16:21, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:David R. Stokes booksigning.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploaded by sockmaster and paid group account Expewikiwriter, which puts the truth of the Creative Commons licensing in doubt, given some of the other things he's sourced, e.g. File:Leonore Omalley First be a woman album cover.jpg, which has a blogspot notice on it. 86.** IP (talk) 16:21, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The version by User:Obi-WanKenobi-2005 is an orphaned non-free file. The version by User:Rich Uncle Penny Bags has neither source nor licence. Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Multan Garrison Mess.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Previously published at http://forum.xcitefun.net/multan-garrison-mess-mgm-images-and-detail-t63678.html and exif data is suspicious. Eeekster (talk) 18:38, 21 April 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: marked fair use. Compare with commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seamus Romney.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seamus Romney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that Scott Crider, the given source, has the rights to license the photo. Kelly ^hi! 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're aware that it is also available under the same name on Commons, right? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I've nominated it for deletion there. Kelly ^hi! 20:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't delete I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion of this picture. I submitted documentation that Scott Crider, the founder of Dogs Against Romney, gave Wikipedia the right to use the picture under a Creative Commons 1.0 license, and I was given an OTRS number. There is no way that I can definitely prove that Scott Crider was granted permission from Boston Globe to use the photo, and likewise there is no that I can definitely prove that the Boston Globe was given permission by Jane Romney. However, nowhere in Wikipedia's image use policy does it require that a picture be verified back to its origin -- antecedent verification would be an impossibility in many cases. Many of Wikipedia's images are from magazine and newspapers -- do we verify the magazine or newspaper has a proper copyright? Below I list two Wikipedia images whose copyrights are not verified all the way back to its origin.Debbie W. 04:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'File:Osama bin Laden portrait.jpg'
      • 'File:George Steinbrenner s life work 13july2010 000150.jpg'
• Comment - The OTRS ticket is a forward that came from the website owner, not the creator of the photograph. With all due respect, I would not have marked this as valid permission. I do not think that Dogs Against Romney can choose the license for a photo taken by Ms. Romney unless they have specific legal permission to do so. However, this should be kept and marked fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on Wikipedia as fair use pending deletion on Commons as I don't know how an anti-Romney website would own copyright of an old picture of his dog Well now, I think that is my longest !vote to date...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • kelapstick: My understanding is that Dogs Against Romney obtained the copyright from the Boston Globe. My problem with the proposed deletion is that it creates a new copyright standard that is unenforceable. For example, look at the Osama Bin Laden article referenced. The photo summary says, Abdul Rahman bin Laden (son of Osama bin Laden) took the photo and released it to Hamid Mir, a Pakistani news reporter at the time. I'm almost certain that Wikipedia doesn't have verification all the way back to Bin Laden's son. With this new standard, if a person gets a photo from a newspaper or other media site, we will have to determine whether the newspaper or media site had the proper copyright. That's not in line with Wikipedia's current copyright policies, and is grossly impractical Debbie W. 20:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that one image being improperly licenced is not grounds for having another image improperly licenced. My position on the English Wikipedia is if the image is deleted at commons as being improperly licenced, than we should keep a fair use copy of it here for use in the article. If the image is not deleted at commons, than my point is moot, as we will not be required to host one here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I concur with keeping the file under fair use, providing the correct license tag and a rationale is added. Kelly ^hi! 16:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - it's not our job to verify the provenance, and chain of ownership of each photo; rather, we rely on the good faith representation of the source. the absence of a take down notice, indicates the implied consent, or sufferance of the photo taker. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually that's not so - see WP:COPYOTHERS. Kelly ^hi! 14:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolution After communicating with Sarah Stierch, the admin who granted the OTRS ticket, I changed the licensing of the photo to non-free historic use based on the fact that the dog is deceased and there are no other known pictures of the dog. There doesn't appear to be a clear answer to the question whether we are required to verify the provenance of images. Because a number of other websites (e.g., newspapers, magazine) copied the photo of Seamus while it was under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 license, I included a detailed explanation at page about the change in copyright status. Debbie W. 16:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see that the licence has been changed to non-free. Note that the article using the image, Seamus (dog), has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination). If the article is deleted, this image will most likely end up being orphaned. In that case, it may be deleted as orphaned fair use. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crafton Wikipedia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is tagged with conflicting license tags. No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder; image appears to be a promotional/press photo (and thus copyrighted) but this cannot be verified either. Uploader has in the past tagged sourced-from-Internet files as CC-BY-SA. As this photograph cannot be confirmed as free- or fair-use, it should be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iowa Trophy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is tagged with conflicting license tags. No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder; image appears to be a promotional/press photo (and thus copyrighted) but this cannot be verified either. Uploader has in the past tagged sourced-from-Internet files as CC-BY-SA. As this photograph cannot be confirmed as free- or fair-use, it should be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crafton Martinsville Pole.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is tagged with conflicting license tags. No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder; image appears to be a promotional/press photo (and thus copyrighted) but this cannot be verified either. Uploader has in the past tagged sourced-from-Internet files as CC-BY-SA. As this photograph cannot be confirmed as free- or fair-use, it should be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 21 April 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matt Crafton Charlotte Win.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is tagged with conflicting license tags. No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder; image appears to be a promotional/press photo (and thus copyrighted) but this cannot be verified either. Uploader has in the past tagged sourced-from-Internet files as CC-BY-SA. As this photograph cannot be confirmed as free- or fair-use, it should be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 21 April 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.