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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyumen Muravlenko Monument GiproTNG.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no freedom of panorama in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#Russia IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep otrs pending--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood the concern, the problem isn't the identity of the photographer. I think its pretty clear that the uploader is the photographer, and your suggestion to the uploader to forward this to OTRS is nice, but doesn't resolve the issue that Russia's copyright law denies freedom of panorama for commercial purposes. This photo is a derivative work of a sculpture, and without freedom of panorama, we need the permission of the artist who sculpted the statue or evidence that the statue's copyright is in the public domain. —RP88 ^(talk) 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought the OTRS was permission for the sculpture.Must have misunderstood.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Behdad Sami.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a promotional photograph or screenshot, unlikely that uploader has the right to release it under a free license. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LB College.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Questionable sourcing and copyright status. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I dispute the licensing statement given, suspect the file was uploaded by the owner of the print who may not necessary be the copyright holder. Codf1977 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Front of Basilica of Our Lady of Dolours.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• source says it's ARR. Besides, botched attempt to place some kind of review template with a date in the future. Gah! Is stuff like that still speedyable here? Lupo 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lulu-Convention-Centre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• source is some forum; no evidence at all that the poster published this image under any license at all. Lupo 14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thrissur city from church.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader had asked at picasa whether he might use this image "on Wikipedia", but (a) no reply, (b) no evidence of free licensing, and (c) "Wikipedia-only" is not good enough for a free license. Lupo 14:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. File tagged with {{PD-Pre1978}}. — ξ^xplicit 00:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sculpture is the main focus of the image, but there is no FOP in the US for sculptures. —fetch·comms 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was erected prior to 1978 without a copyright notice (see Chicago Picasso). The statue is in the public domain per {{PD-Pre1978}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Promotional image or magazine cover of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does: (copyright passed on to myself). I own the copyright of this cover. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you obtain copyright to a novel cover published by Christopher Davies Publishers in 1996? —RP88 ^(talk) 14:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snow Leopard Screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not an actual screenshot of Mac OS X Snow Leopard; background and other features are different. I should know, I use SL! Dock does not represent a view of the commonly used icons, which is detrimental to the image. In addition, non-Apple icons are shown without attribution. I noticed Microsoft Messenger and Skype which don't belong in this screenshot. mono 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Commonly used icons" are highly subjective and vary from user to user. Do you mean to say "default icons"? As for the third party apps such as Microsoft Messenger and Skype, I agree that they are not necessary and need attribution. I'm therefore not objecting to deletion after 14 days. Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close: I have removed it from all articles it is used in and replaced it with File:Snow Leopard Desktop.png. It is up for CSD.--mono 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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