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. Wikipedia is governed by the laws of the United States, and this flag is considered in the public domain for failing to meet the threshold of originality. That is all Wikipedia is concerned with, and this file can not possibly be unfree as long as the file is hosted here specifically. There is absolutely no reason to change the license to a non-free one. — ξ^xplicit 07:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The Australian aboriginal flag is probably unfree and should be restricted to very few or several articles mainly discussing the flag itself. Even when the US might not protect the flag, the copyright belongs to Australia. We should treat it as unfree, but we must not delete the flag. George Ho (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Although an Australian court has declared the flag to be unfree, it is clearly below the threshold of originality of the United States. Therefore, it is enough to tag it with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, we can't go by solely US jurisdiction. We must also go for the laws of Australia. Also, some people voted "deletion" on Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries, although I proposed a rename. The "PD-ineligible-USonly" is insufficient to verify the actual copyright status, no matter where servers are located at. --George Ho (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right about the legal position, George. I have written to the Commonwealth Flag Officer to see whether they have a suggestion and will notify any reply here. In the meantime, I agree that we should keep showing the flag - we are operating in entirely good faith. (The username that follows is an account created just for this occasion, so that I will be able to use my real name in reporting the reply.) Flagcopier (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flagcopier, how many articles should use this non-free image? --George Ho (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho, see WP:NUSC: 'While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries.' If you wish to change this rule, please propose a change at WT:C instead of nominating individual files for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2 and Flagcopier: Why is PUF treated as a deletion page? This is not a deletion. It's a determination of copyright status. This assumption... frustrates me. Do you know a better venue than this? FFD is now a discussion page, no longer a deletion. Want that? George Ho (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule, according to WP:NUSC, is that works which are in the public domain in the United States count as 'free' on Wikipedia, and this flag is clearly in the public domain in the United States, and is therefore 'free' on Wikipedia. If you want to change that, propose a change of WP:NUSC or WP:C. You should also keep in mind that the Berne Convention forces Australia to provide protection for lots of United States logos which are below the threshold of originality of the United States but not that of Australia. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, I would argue using common sense and treating it as unfree, but I don't think most Americans study or have read Australian law. Since I don't share people's senses on what they do not know, what else is commonly known in regards to this case? Also, I wouldn't think of WP:NUSC as a guideline. But, since it is, I can ignore it to improve Wikipedia (i.e. make a good example to editors out there). George Ho (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong assumption. Probably the guideline needs improvement. George Ho (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho, we have lots of templates which are based on the rule that only United States copyright law matters on Wikipedia. See, for example, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, {{FoP-USonly}} and {{non-free fair use}}. Other countries have other copyright terms and exemptions from copyright protection. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think this is a legal question, effectively - whether the flag would be considered copyrightable in the US despite not being original enough, because of that court ruling and the treaties that govern international copyrights.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rule in United States copyright law is that it is only the threshold of originality in the United States which matters. See for example Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (claimed to be copyrighted in the United Kingdom, copyright protection refused in the United States) and Hasbro Bradley v. Sparkle Toys (claimed to be ineligible for copyright protection in Japan, copyright protection granted in the United States). This position is also supported by the Berne Convention, which states that you should only use the laws of the country where protection is claimed but not by the laws of the source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about {{non-free Australian Crown copyright}}, Stefan and Jo-Jo? Although nonexistent, that applies to Australian government properties. Crown copyright says so; therefore, a template should be created. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In Australia, the flag is © Harold Joseph Thomas and is not subject to Crown Copyright. Templates such as {{Non-free Crown copyright}} and {{Non-free Canadian Crown Copyright}} (don't we have one for Australia?) are only meant to be used for files which are non-free in the United States, although the template mentions the law of other countries at some places. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Commonwealth Flag Officer has kindly written back to me, with no suggestion beyond that, if this use is not within an exemption in the (Australian) Copyright Act (and I can't see one), Wikipedia should ask the copyright holder, Mr Harold Thomas, for permission. However, I cannot find a path for asking the Wikimedia Foundation to do that and no user can do it on the Foundation's behalf.

My guess (as to the third point, no more than that) is this: (1) the image is subject to copyright, which is held by Mr Thomas; (2) publication in Wikipedia is governed by the place of publication, which is the USA; and (3) publication of an official national flag, in particular neither commercially nor in any way that diminishes the market value of the image, falls within the fair use exemption in US copyright law. Flagcopier (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exempt or not, let's consider it unfree then in respect to Australian laws. George Ho (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be unfree in Australia. Our policy considers whether it would be copyrightable in the US. My sense from reading this is "no", so I'd keep as PD-USOnly because we cannot change the "which copyright law matters" policy here. A courtesy permission request is something we can do but it doesn't render the image non-free.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we at least have a valid rationale for this image? --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Under no circumstance can two rectangles with a superimposed circle be copyrighted in the US; this is far below the threshold of originality. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point about a valid rationale, George, to be whether there is a good reason to continue using this image although there is a question whether it is free to use.

Have we now got to the following position, which would allow the image to be kept? (1) The image is subject to copyright, which is held by Mr Thomas, and this is acknowledged in the article; (2) Australian law (the Copyright Act 1968) does not appear to provide an exemption; (3) publication in Wikipedia is governed by the place of publication, which is the USA; (4) the image may be subject to copyright in the USA, at least through recognition of foreign copyright; (5) if it is subject to copyright in the USA, nonetheless it is probably exempt because (6) publication of an official national flag, in particular neither commercially nor in any way that diminishes the market value of the image, appears to fall within the fair use exemption in US copyright law; (7) but the exemption in US law has no effect in Australia, so that (8) in Australia the image as used in Wikipedia may be linked to but may not be copied and re-used (9) except for a purpose authorised by the Copyright Act (such as a non-commercial educational purpose). Flagcopier (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you still seem to be concluding that it's subject to copyright in the USA. This is nowhere near sufficient for copyright, given the fact that the Best Western logo (much more complicated) still isn't original enough for copyright. Aside from the fact that the relevant local law has an absurdly low minimum standard for granting copyright protection, this isn't fundamentally different from L.H.O.O.Q., which is copyrighted in the country of origin but kept here with PD tag and without rationale because it's in the public domain in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • 1. The file is subject to copyright in Australia.[1] Whether it is copyrighted in other countries depends on local laws. It is quite obviously not copyrighted in the United States.
    2. The Copyright Act 1968 contains exemptions from copyright in certain situations. For example, there is a FOP exception and a fair dealing exception which sometimes are relevant when using copyrighted material in Australia. What does this have to do with the file discussed here.
    3. Wikipedia is only governed by United States law.
    4. The image is not subject to copyright in the United States. Copyright protection to non-U.S. works is only recognised if the work meets the threshold of originality of the United States, which isn't the case here. See for example Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. For this reason, the file should be kept and not marked as unfree.
    5. It is not copyrighted in the United States in the first place.
    6. Fair use files may only be used on Wikipedia under the non-free content criteria, which are meant to be restricted to things permitted in the United States. That said, this flag is not copyrighted in the United States in the first place and therefore doesn't count as a 'fair use file'.
    7. In Australia, the copyright law prevents some use of the flag. If the flag appears on a page on Wikipedia, then there may be restrictions on how you can distribute verbatim copies of the page in Australia, or it may be impossible to distribute copies of the page in Australia altogether. This is a problem for those who wish to distribute Wikipedia content in Australia.
    8. If the Australian copyright law contains an exemption from copyright (such as fair dealing) and a Wikipedia page containing the image qualifies for that exemption, then it is possible to distribute copies of that Wikipedia page in Australia. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend: I was not assuming that the flag is copyright in the USA, only that it "may" be. Whether it is, is up to those who know US copyright law. Stefan2: thank you—you evidently know your onions here and I think you have summed things up very well for us. I thought that the fact that the image is copyright in Australia was relevant here in view of the possibility that this copyright would be recognised in the USA: you have now answered that. George Ho and Jo-Jo Eumerus, are you also content? Flagcopier (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can fill "Other information" parameter with "PD-ineligible-USonly" inside a "non-free use rationale" template. Agree? --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we need no rationale, and including one will prompt bots and inattentive users to remove it from pages that don't have a rationale and scare off users from adding the image to other pages where it would be relevant. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: Nyttend and Stefan2 are making the point that the image is not eligible for copyright in the USA, so its use here, governed by US law, needs no excuse.

I've fixed up the first reference in the article, to make the Australian government webpage on the flag more accessible. However, that page states categorically that, apart from flying the flag, any use of the design requires the artist's permission unless it is allowed under the Copyright Act. I can't think of a wording that would explain its use in Wikipedia but would not look like legal advice on a specific issue and not encourage rip-off merchants the world over, causing no end of bother to Mr Thomas (as with Google, though Google may have been well-intentioned). However, if the flag cannot attract copyright in the USA, Google didn't have to fight—that is, legally, but their moral (well, company reputation) position was difficult. Flagcopier (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flagcopier I think this was a worthwhile discussion to have; copyrights can be very complicated. I do not think that we need a use rationale in this case, although one might want to discuss whether templates like {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} should warn that using the files outside of the US may be subject to copyright restrictions. That's a discussion for another venue, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia is for everybody who understands English. It caters to Australians, British, Canadians, and others of former British colonies. It caters to other regions also. Of course the template is needed to avoid transfer to Commons, which deleted the Australian aboriginal flag as unfree. --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skazka o rybake i rybke.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 1950 is too recent for the age restrictions in the template. Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skazka o mertvoi tzarevne.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 1951 is too recent for the copyright tag used. Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Davide (Donatello).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old sculpture found on the Internet, or in a book. Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Very scary.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unknown country of photography, but the photographed item does not seem to be permanently installed, which would rule out FOP more or less everywhere. Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  What is FOP? It's a photograph of an inflatable t-rex.--MONGO 14:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Its a picture of a portable, temporary, inflatable t-rex dinosaur. I took the picture in 2007 in Nebraska, USA. What is the problem with this image?--MONGO 14:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the problem with this -- uploaded by the photographer, put in the public domain by the photographer. Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Duh...took me a bit to find FOP...Freedom of panorama. Um...well they put these things up to draw attention to fireworks stands or they can be found inflated at parties, festivals, etc. Sometimes dinosaurs or King Kong inflatable things....maybe 25-30 feet tall at best. Not permanent fixtures not sculptures.--MONGO 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was taken in the United States in 2007, then the dinosaur is probably a recent creation. This means that you need permission from whoever created it. See for example c:COM:FOP#United States and c:COM:TOYS. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoever created it...you mean the company that manufactures these things?--MONGO 09:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that company is probably the copyright holder of the dinosaur. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Hard to come by this. Anyhoo...um...sure am glad I'm not going to be deleting this. Whoever does better put in for a username change immediately afterward because Jurassic age critters are very ornery.--MONGO 17:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I run across these periodically - apparently there's a longstanding joke/tradition to post silly images to Bishonen's talk page. The talk page archives are full of them. I don't have a huge problem with it, but unless they have some potential encyclopedic purpose they should probably be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST after they've served their immediate purpose of making people smile or whatever and gone into the archives, just so image patrollers and Commons movers don't have to try to figure out what to do with them. MONGO, yes, the copyright would be held by whoever made this thing and this image is technically a non-free derivative work. Kelly ^hi! 11:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bishonen not involved... silly images go on Bishzilla's page always! See friendly smiling image used in arbcom candidacy campaign here. May be needed again (2015 arbcom nomination period not yet over!). bishzilla _ROARR!! 13:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Soo...do you Bishzilla think that your likeness is "silly"? I mean because if you don't then it might be better we keep the image because well...it just might be better. I mean. I don't think Kelly is serious when he says this doesn't have encyclopedic value!--MONGO 15:25, 11 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bembridge shield.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative of school crest, we don't know what its copyright status is. Kelly ^hi! 15:24, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image of deceased composer. No evidence uploader is copyright holder, limited contribution history. Kelly ^hi! 15:37, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amor shaul-s.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Given the apparent age of Mr Amor in this picture I find it a little hard to consider 50 years as having elapsed. Would meet fair-use, as he is deceased. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to come from he:קובץ:Amor_shaul-s.jpg, where no source is given and fair use seems to be claimed. As there is no source, WP:NFCC#10a isn't satisfied. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yifan Xu 2015 Wimbledon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Referral due to the inclusion of the Wimbledon logo, which is above TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is also on Commons as c:File:Yifan Xu 2015 Wimbledon.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goldshmidt yosef.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the picture is old enough. The source, he:קובץ:Goldshmidt yosef.jpg, claims fair use and doesn't reveal where the picture comes from. Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is claimed as being too simple, I'm not so sure. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Uploader not copyright holder, apparently. Kelly ^hi! 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The mask is obviously copyrighted too. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The uploader claims this is simple, but the presence of the backdrop raises this logo above the threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The background is obviously copyrighted. Not used in the article namespace, so can't be changed in to {{non-free logo}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unclear if the uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 23:07, 10 November 2015 (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.

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 and convert to fair use. The image will be removed from all articles except Joseph Cahill, as any other use would be in violation of WP:NFCC. — ξ^xplicit 07:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:JJ Cahill.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Too incomplete source to verify copyright claim. The copyright tag is for Australia, but Wikipedia demands a United States copyright tag. Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retag as perhaps being in the public domain, but we're not sure. It's probably still under US copyright (if a work of the federal government, its copyright expired in 2006, not pre-1996), but regardless of the situation, it's a good candidate for fair use, since he's long deceased. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2015 (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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 07:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• License statement on file seems to indicate "non-commerical". Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I modified my permission. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it's a simple case of {{Attribution}} now that DRosenbach has changed the permission statement. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2015 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No source given, so no way to confirm is this is free use. Tabercil (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2015 (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.