Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 July 25



July 25
correct license & FUR added SkierRMH  ( talk ) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Marock.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: kept as non-free Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I find it unlikely that an official movie poster has been released under a creative commons licence —Jeremy (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to a copyright tag. Calliopejen1 10:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Laredo_Skyline.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * vistorstips.com is a website where users/cities can upload their pictures an release it from any licences. Laredo Convention and Visitors Bureau published this picture and agreed to this:

Section II paragraph F states users are prohibited to: "post, publish, upload, distribute, or transmit any material that infringes upon any third party's copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right"

and also agree to release image to be modified used and shared

http://www.visitortips.com/info/TermsOfUse.cfm?lid=317

AMAPO 10:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see any place that states that the uploader allows anyone in the world to use the image for any purpose.  howcheng  {chat} 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Howcheng. All that the section you quoted says is that a user of that site cannot upload someone elses copyrighted material.  It says nothing about releasing their own copyright of the uploaded photo.  --Holderca1 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Laredo_Federal_Court_House.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * city-data.com is a forum where users upload pictures of their cities and must agree to this:

You are at least 18 years of age. You represent and promise that you are the person who originally took the photograph (picture), that you have all necessary rights to submit this photograph and to grant others a license to use the photograph, and that you have not previously conveyed exclusive rights to use this photograph to any other person. City-data.com and its licensees may reproduce, distribute, publish, display, edit, modify, create derivative works and otherwise use the picture for any purpose in any form and on any media. You represent that you have accurately conveyed the information above. You grant City-data.com an irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive license to use the picture and to grant the others the right to use the picture in City-data.com's sole discretion. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless City-data.com from any and all liability, penalties, losses, damages, costs, expenses, attorney's fees, causes of action or claims caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from your submission of this picture without limitation or exception. Submitting this picture does not prevent you from using the picture yourself and giving others the right to use it. City-data.com will make the determination of whether or not to use the picture on this site in its own discretion. You understand that your picture may be rated or commented on by visitors to this site, and that these ratings and comments may be negative. Your name, IP address, and the exact time of the submission will be recorded along with your submission for our records. City-data.com may edit your picture before publishing it (ex. resize it).

http://www.city-data.com/sendpic.php?w=Laredo-Texas.html&n=Laredo

AMAPO 10:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, that says the photographer grants City-data.com and its licensees the right to do anything they want with the photo. It doesn't mean the photographer grants anyone the same right, which is what a GFDL license would allow.  howcheng  {chat} 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:LCC_South_Campus.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC) city-data.com is a forum where users upload pictures of their cities and must agree to this:

You are at least 18 years of age. You represent and promise that you are the person who originally took the photograph (picture), that you have all necessary rights to submit this photograph and to grant others a license to use the photograph, and that you have not previously conveyed exclusive rights to use this photograph to any other person. City-data.com and its licensees may reproduce, distribute, publish, display, edit, modify, create derivative works and otherwise use the picture for any purpose in any form and on any media. You represent that you have accurately conveyed the information above. You grant City-data.com an irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive license to use the picture and to grant the others the right to use the picture in City-data.com's sole discretion. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless City-data.com from any and all liability, penalties, losses, damages, costs, expenses, attorney's fees, causes of action or claims caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from your submission of this picture without limitation or exception. Submitting this picture does not prevent you from using the picture yourself and giving others the right to use it. City-data.com will make the determination of whether or not to use the picture on this site in its own discretion. You understand that your picture may be rated or commented on by visitors to this site, and that these ratings and comments may be negative. Your name, IP address, and the exact time of the submission will be recorded along with your submission for our records. City-data.com may edit your picture before publishing it (ex. resize it).

http://www.city-data.com/sendpic.php?w=Laredo-Texas.html&n=Laredo

AMAPO 10:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Full_House_Bucks_Game.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * vistorstips.com is a website where users/cities can upload their pictures an release it from any licences. Laredo Convention and Visitors Bureau published this picture and agreed to this:

Section II paragraph F states users are prohibited to: "post, publish, upload, distribute, or transmit any material that infringes upon any third party's copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right"

and also agree to release image to be modified used and shared

http://www.visitortips.com/info/TermsOfUse.cfm?lid=317

AMAPO 10:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, the pictures aren't there. Secondly, the exact pictures are found at this website, so even if they were there, they were likely uploaded by someone who didn't have the right to.  It's still a copyright violation.  --fuzzy510 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:LEC_Fireworks.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * vistorstips.com is a website where users/cities can upload their pictures an release it from any licences. Laredo Convention and Visitors Bureau published this picture and agreed to this:

Section II paragraph F states users are prohibited to: "post, publish, upload, distribute, or transmit any material that infringes upon any third party's copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right"

and also agree to release image to be modified used and shared

http://www.visitortips.com/info/TermsOfUse.cfm?lid=317

AMAPO 10:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, the pictures aren't there. Secondly, the exact pictures are found at this website, so even if they were there, they were likely uploaded by someone who didn't have the right to.  It's still a copyright violation. --fuzzy510 19:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:SeaborneLogo.gif

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is not a logo but rather a graphic, which is surely copyrighted by the company. Russavia 07:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Ploy_Jensen.JPG

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Procedural listing. Declined speedy tagged as "This image is not PD. The same person also uploaded different photos from magazines, clip video, and so forth". I couldn't find it myself using google, but that doesn't prove much.  But | seriously | folks   07:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A Thai friend told me this is a crop of a notorious nude photo of Ploy. As such, it's pretty unlikely to have been created by the uploader. Calliopejen1 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:SouthernAirCharter1.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as I3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Has been lifted from the airlines website and is not a logo but a copyrighted graphic Russavia 07:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:AexpaLogo.JPG

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a logo but rather a complete graphic from http://www.aexpa.com/ - this can't be claimed under fair use surely? Russavia 07:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Aerocaribe1.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image has been obtained from a website somewhere, and is more substantial than a 'logo' Russavia 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:1947_Indo_Pak_War.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Procedural listing. Declined speedy tagged because: "This is a copyrighted image NOT taken in Pakistan. It has been wrongly tagged as a public domain image in Pakistan. The area this image was taken in has never been a part of Pakistan. The uploader admitted in the previous version of this image that this is an image taken by an Indian governmental organization, therefore the lisence tag for this image is incorrect. Since the source and copyright status of the image is unknown, this image cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia." See also talk page.  But | seriously | folks   09:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The disputed border area is claimed by both sides. In this case it actually doesn't matter. PD-India is 60 years from date of first publication, which means it enters the public domain January 1st if it was made in India. As it's a picture of soldiers from both sides with guns pointed at each other, I'd call it a draw, personally. Recommend tagging with both PD-Pakistan and PD-India (or delete and undelete January 1st). -Nard 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Akhenaten_(realistic,_reup).jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Procedural listing. Declined speedy tagged because: "This image is not PD. The same person also uploaded different photos from magazines, clip video, and so forth"  But | seriously | folks   09:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Human_Layer_London.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Magazine cover- No evidence uploader is rights holder Sfan00 IMG 09:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Human -newspaper cover is Public Domain. The design was created as a FREE NEWSPAPER for Greetings From London and London Architecture Biennial -exhibitions 2004 by Casagrande Laboratory in Estonia, distributed for free and wall papered around London.


 * Public Domain. It was created for copywright free distribution over web and on the streets.
 * Just because a newspaper is available for free does not mean it is in the public domain. Calliopejen1 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:IHMINEN.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Magazine cover - No evidence uploader is rights holder Sfan00 IMG 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ihminen -cover is Public Domain. It was created as a FREE NEWSPAPER in connection with Helsinki Festival 2004 by Casagrande Laboratory Finland and distributed openly around Helsinki and attached to other free newspapers.
 * Public domain. Copywright free distribution over web and on streets.
 * Just because a newspaper is available for free does not mean it is in the public domain. Calliopejen1 20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:IL_UOMO_cover_page.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Magazine cover - no evidence uploader is rights holder Sfan00 IMG 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Il Uomo is public domain. The magazine was created as a FREE NEWSPAPER FOR VENICE BIENNALE 2006 by Casagrande Laboratory Taiwan.

PUBLIC DOMAIN. The newspaper was freely e-mailed around during the Biennale and distributed for free in Italy.
 * Just because a newspaper is available for free does not mean it is in the public domain. Calliopejen1 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Douglas-DC-3.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This image I know was produced by Cubana in the 1980s as part of a historical set of promotional postcards, so User:Peruzele can not own the copyright to the image Russavia 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is not from the Internet. It cannot be found in any website. It cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. Moreover, Cuba neither has nor respects copyright laws. As such, the legal notion of "copyright" used in other nations does NOT exist in Cuba. Anyone familiar with Cuba and Cuban laws knows this. For example, books published in other countries under copyright are routinely published in Cuba (translated or not) without ever asking for permission to publish from those who hold copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rusavia" (user name) trying to sabotage Wikipedia's Cubana page? The argument made by Rusavia is completely spurious. Apparently, Rusavia does not know or understand copyright restrictions. The posting of this image is completely valid and justified. I have been told that certain individuals are going around the Web, using different "user names", raising spurious arguments to try to get photos, images and other artwork taken off websites (such as Wikipedia's). Those parties, however, lift the photos, images or art before they are taken off and then sell the same photos, images or art in auction sites, or privaterly through personal websites. Rusavia's argument is not only spurious, it could be part of this sort of scam (which is becoming common in the Web).


 * If the user who will not sign in would like to make accusations against myself, then please, provide evidence of be quiet. Am I trying to sabotage the Cubana article? NO!! But I do want an article which is free from copyright violations, and the argument stands true, as the uploader does NOT own the copyright to the image in question, so can't release it. --Russavia 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright infringement may be rampant in Cuba, but the country does have IP laws. Even if Cuba doesn't respect copyright law, Wikipedia does. Calliopejen1 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana de Aviacion 1953.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a Cubana timetable image and is not a logo. Cubana would still hold any copyright to the image; Bjorn Larsson & David Zekria are collectors of timetables. Russavia 10:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure about Cuban copyright law... according to template talk:PD-Cuba it may be indefinite for corporate owned works. Should be considered fair use though. -Nard 14:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT LAW IN CUBA. Anyone minimally familiar with Cuban laws would know that copyrights of any kind are NOT observed in Cuba. All publishing is done by the government in Cuba. Cuba routinely publishes works (including text, photos, images) by foreign authors without any regard for copyright or royalties. This is common knowledge for anyone familiar with Cuba's situation. THE POSTING OF THE CUBANA TIMETABLE COVER IS NOT ANY WAY OR FORM A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT. MOREOVER, THE COUNTRY (JURISDICTION) WHERE THE AIRLINE IS HEADQUARTERED DOES NOT CONSIDER COPYRIGHT A PROPERTY RIGHT. UNDER CUBAN LAW ALL CREATIVE WORK, SUCH AS PHOTOS, IMAGES, TEXT, IS "PUBLIC" AND "SOCIAL", AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO UNRESTRICTED AND UNLIMITED REPRODUCTION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Havana Airport.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Havana Jose Marti.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Havana Train.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Juan Gualberto Gomez airport.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. This image still has airliners.net copyright tags in place. Russavia 10:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Blue Panorama and LAN in Havana.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Jose Marti airport in Havana.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana IL96 in Toronto.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This image is not from the Internet. It cannot be found in any website. It cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume that 68.109.197.213 is the uploader. if the image is not from the internet, can you perhaps explain this? This photo is not on the net :-D Then you can explain how all of the images which you have released under GFDL V1.2 have different names attached to the copyright. --Russavia 19:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana Yak-42.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana's leased A320.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rusavia" (user name) trying to sabotage Wikipedia's Cubana page? The argument made by Rusavia is completely spurious. Apparently, Rusavia does not know or understand copyright restrictions. The posting of this and other photos (taken and posted by those who took them) is completely valid and justified. I have been told that certain individuals are going around the Web, using different "user names", raising spurious arguments to try to get photos, images and other artwork taken off websites (such as Wikipedia's). Those parties, however, lift the photos, images or art before they are taken off and then sell the same photos, images or art in auction sites, or privaterly through personal websites. Rusavia's argument is not only spurious, it could be part of this sort of scam (which is becoming common in the Web).

The statement by Rusavia "has uploaded many other images" is ridiculous. Has "Rusavia" considered that they may not be the same individual? Has "Rusavia" considered that the individuals who posted them may be related? The fact that the "names of copyright holders are all different" as Rusavia states, makes no difference whatsoever. Rusavia should make itself knowledgeable about copyright restrictions and fair use stipulations, before posting irresponsible and ignorant comments on this matter. Is this a joke?
 * 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.

Image:IL96 Payload-range.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image is copyrighted to Ilyushin Design Bureau, and this image is not a logo. The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana IL62 Guarulhos takeoff.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This image is not from the Internet. It cannot be found in any website. It cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume that 68.109.197.213 is the uploader. if the image is not from the internet, can you perhaps explain this? This photo is not on the net :-D Then you can explain how all of the images which you have released under GFDL V1.2 have different names attached to the copyright. --Russavia 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana IL-62 landing in Montreal.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Varadero Airport.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana IL96 in Lisbon.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but the names of copyright holders are all different. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is not from the Internet. It cannot be found in any website. It cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rusavia" (user name) trying to sabotage Wikipedia's Cubana page? The argument made by Rusavia is completely spurious. Apparently, Rusavia does not know or understand copyright restrictions. The posting of this and other photos (taken and posted by those who took them) is completely valid and justified. I have been told that certain individuals are going around the Web, using different "user names", raising spurious arguments to try to get photos, images and other artwork taken off websites (such as Wikipedia's). Those parties, however, lift the photos, images or art before they are taken off and then sell the same photos, images or art in auction sites, or privaterly through personal websites. Rusavia's argument is not only spurious, it could be part of this sort of scam (which is becoming common in the Web).


 * I assume that 68.109.197.213 is the uploader. if the image is not from the internet, can you perhaps explain this? This photo is not on the net :-D Then you can explain how all of the images which you have released under GFDL V1.2 have different names attached to the copyright.
 * 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.

Image:Sikorsky S-38.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Another image from this user which is from a 1980s Cubana collector postcard set, for which Cubana holds copyright. Russavia 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. It should be kept on the site as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rusavia" (user name) trying to sabotage Wikipedia's Cubana page? The argument made by Rusavia is completely spurious. Apparently, Rusavia does not know or understand copyright restrictions. The posting of this image is completely valid and justified. I have been told that certain individuals are going around the Web, using different "user names", raising spurious arguments to try to get photos, images and other artwork taken off websites (such as Wikipedia's). Those parties, however, lift the photos, images or art before they are taken off and then sell the same photos, images or art in auction sites, or privaterly through personal websites. Rusavia's argument is not only spurious, it could be part of this sort of scam (which is becoming common in the Web).
 * As Cubana in Havana hold copyright to this image you are unable to release it under any licence. --Russavia 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Viscount over Havana.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but are from scans of images or images from the net. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is not from the Internet. It cannot be found in any website. It cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rusavia" (user name) trying to sabotage Wikipedia's Cubana page? The argument made by Rusavia is completely spurious. Apparently, Rusavia does not know or understand copyright restrictions. The posting of this image is completely valid and justified. I have been told that certain individuals are going around the Web, using different "user names", raising spurious arguments to try to get photos, images and other artwork taken off websites (such as Wikipedia's). Those parties, however, lift the photos, images or art before they are taken off and then sell the same photos, images or art in auction sites, or privaterly through personal websites. Rusavia's argument is not only spurious, it could be part of this sort of scam (which is becoming common in the Web).
 * The image is a postcard. And if it can't be found in any website, can you please this? The postcard is issued by Cubana in Havana, so they hold copyright, and as you don't hold copyright, how can you release it under GFDL? Or are you seriously going to tell me you do own the copyright, in which case you best start suing that person who is profiting off your image. Making a mistake is understandable, but to blatantly lie is "fill in descriptor here" --Russavia 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Bristol-Britannia-1961.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but are from scans of images or images from the net. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This image is not from the Internet. It cannot be found in any website. It cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana IL-18.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but are from scans of images or images from the net. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is not from the Internet. It cannot be found in any website. It cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rusavia" (user name) trying to sabotage Wikipedia's Cubana page? The argument made by Rusavia is completely spurious. Apparently, Rusavia does not know or understand copyright restrictions. The posting of this and other photos (taken and posted by those who took them) is completely valid and justified. I have been told that certain individuals are going around the Web, using different "user names", raising spurious arguments to try to get photos, images and other artwork taken off websites (such as Wikipedia's). Those parties, however, lift the photos, images or art before they are taken off and then sell the same photos, images or art in auction sites, or privaterly through personal websites. Rusavia's argument is not only spurious, it could be part of this sort of scam (which is becoming common in the Web).
 * Nice to meet you Leon Franco. Evidence of non-ownership of copyright here. --Russavia 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cubana IL-76.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who uploaded this image has uploaded many other images using GFDL V1.2 licence, but are from scans of images or images from the net. Refer to some of the other images which are noted in these logs. Russavia 10:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is not from the Internet. It cannot be found in any website. It cannot be considered copyrighted material under any legal consideration of that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.197.213 (talk) 04:26, July 28, 2007 (UTC)

Is "Rusavia" (user name) trying to sabotage Wikipedia's Cubana page? The argument made by Rusavia is completely spurious. Apparently, Rusavia does not know or understand copyright restrictions. The posting of this and other photos (taken and posted by those who took them) is completely valid and justified. I have been told that certain individuals are going around the Web, using different "user names", raising spurious arguments to try to get photos, images and other artwork taken off websites (such as Wikipedia's). Those parties, however, lift the photos, images or art before they are taken off and then sell the same photos, images or art in auction sites, or privaterly through personal websites. Rusavia's argument is not only spurious, it could be part of this sort of scam (which is becoming common in the Web).
 * Of course it is not from the net. It is from a postcard published in the Czech Republic. If I had access to mine, I could tell you who the photographer is, but it would not be yourself. image here --Russavia 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:House truck.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence "Rebekah Terry" released it as PD or CC. // Liftarn 11:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refer image discussion page. Mombas 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Gypsy Travellers 6.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence "Rebekah Terry" released it as PD or CC. // Liftarn 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refer image discussion page.Mombas 08:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Fri 1972.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No source Bernard Rhodes gave permission (or took the photo for that matter. // Liftarn 11:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Buy the book "Fri Alert" which is referenced, and you will have all the evidence you need that the photo was taken by Bernard Rhodes. Take the effort to look at the image talk page and you will find out that the books co author has given authority to use the image on Wikipedia. kind regards Mombas 08:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. Deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   17:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons image SkierRMH  ( talk ) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:African_leopard.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence uploader has authority to release the image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree there is "no evidence" the uploader has the authority to release the image.The person who took this photograph is a personal friend of mine named Sandra Fenley. I gave her proper credit.  She also told me I could release it under any license that I like.   Futhermore, if you look at my editing history, it will become apparent that I'm a reliable editor going back several years now.  I have no idea how much more convincing I could possibly provide you.  I certainly appreciate your vigilance in safeguarding Wikipedia from copyrighted photos, however, in this particular case, the vigilance is unwarranted.  Thanks, Googie man 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please have your friend write a declaration of consent and forward it to OTRS. That will prevent any further misunderstandings. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been two months and the image has not been cleared by OTRS. Deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.

Image:Pleckerbig.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No evidence at source to show first publication date (or date photo was taken). Actually appears to be from later than 1923 (my subjective judgement) given the appearance of the people in the photo. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still no evidence two months later. Deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Churchill-Luxemburg.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is apparently a drawing by Ward Churchill, derivative of a public domain photo. However, doesn't Churchill retain copyright? Videmus Omnia Talk  18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am personally the owner of the physical drawing, and personally created the digital image based on the drawing (i.e. I took a photograph of it). The drawing itself is by Churchill, but the photograph of the drawing is my own: and I release it to the public domain. This is the same structure as a museum that holds an original work, and prohibits others from photographing those works while publishing its own photographs of same works (well, modulo the drawing being less impressive than ones in major museums, and my photographic skills being far less than that of photographers museums hire).   LotLE × talk  16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the age of the piece the copyright of the image will still lie with the original artists - this 2-d reproduction is a derivative work and therefore attracts the same copyright status as the original. Despite owning the actual print you are therefore unable to release the image under PD as it is a derivative work. The Museum will have had to gain the artists permission to publish its photos. Madmedea 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably usable as fair use for critical commentary on the artist's style. Lulu, can you try to get a release from the artist? -Nard 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try an email to Ward Churchill. But given all the things going on with him, whether he'll respond is non-obvious.  I can't imagine he'd actually not OK it if he gets to a response (or maybe just provide a better image of a better known work, which would be preferable even).  FWIW, the underlying work is not a print, but a single-original drawing.  LotLE × talk  17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Two months later, there's no critical commentary of his style in the article, and there is no OTRS clearance. Deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Route-map.gif
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image is taken directly from Icelandair website and licencing claims that a free image can't be created to replace it. It would be an easy task for someone to do a free equivalent. Russavia 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

License changed SkierRMH  ( talk ) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Bailey_S.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  10:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Labeled as work of US Federal Govt, but comes from State of Mississippi. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kept as non-free. -- But | seriously | folks   18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Altanlive22.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is some text in the lower-left corner that makes me believe this was copied from a web page. →Wordbuilder 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not resolved two months later. Deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons image SkierRMH ( talk ) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Rodstewlive.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a professional photograph. →Wordbuilder 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not resolved two months later. Deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.

Image:Berlinmoya.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a professional photograph. →Wordbuilder 20:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not resolved two months later. Deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   18:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons image SkierRMH ( talk ) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Matmypic3.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a professional photograph. →Wordbuilder 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not resolved two months later. Deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.

Image:Matmypic.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a professional photograph. →Wordbuilder 20:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

License corrected SkierRMH ( talk ) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Google analytics new version.png
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 I6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot of presumably copyrighted software - SCEhard <b style="color:#3D9140;">T</b> 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag has been adjusted. Kept as non-free. --  But | seriously | folks   18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.

Image:TV Face Small Sample.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploader claims to have created it themself, but it appears to be a poster from the TV series. It is not low-quality nor is it scaled down, and therefore fails Fair Use. Corvus cornix 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.