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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MCC-3492.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As with several of my recent nominations, this image was tagged with the "Denver Public Library public domain images" template, which is being deleted because the library's image collection does not consist exclusively of PD images. Although the image is dated to 1904, there is no indication of publication prior to its release online, and the credited photographer died in 1957. Therefore, it is probably still under copyright. RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - Unless you know for certain whether or not this isn't a PD image, it really should stay. ----DanTD (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The photographer died less than 70 years ago, and the image was created less than 120 years ago. Barring an explicit release from the rights-holder, the only way it is PD is if it was published early enough for its copyright to have expired before the newer rules took effect. The description from the library says it came from a glass plate, not a publication. In contrast, many other images in their collection mention the image's prior publication. In the circumstances, I believe the burden is for someone to provide evidence that it was published in the PD window, not the other way around. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (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: Resolved. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:News Breakfast.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo is probably owned by the network Eeekster (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Resolved Image shrunk, license changed, FUR applied. Services rendered at low cost and fun for the whole family, buy a Sven today! Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MCC-3491.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Very similar to the image I nominated above, this image was tagged with the "Denver Public Library public domain images" template and credited to the same photographer, who died in 1957. No indication of publication prior to its being placed online. Therefore, it is probably still under copyright. RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - There really should be some evidence that this isn't PD. ----DanTD (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My reply is the same as above: given the date of the image and the photographer's date of death, I believe some evidence of early publication is needed, rather than attempting to prove the negative. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Universal studio globe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Universal Studio globe Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2011 (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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• possible copyrighted image. the uploader was tring to upload previously upload copyrighted image of same well know chief ministre of West Bengal states of India. Within a one days how if he snaps the minister's images personally at Murshidabad. The there no x date. If the upload take snaps yourself, I request please upload raw version of this image.Even his talk page he mention one contradictory comments "These two were from my personal collection, and I never, never, upload photos from my Personal Collection" - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 14:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't participate in this discussion unless a person fixes the grammar (cause I cannot understand it). But all I have deciphered till now is that this guy may have a personal problem with me and is continously biting me. Also, he has made a bogus proposition and corrupted one of my statement. Next time you want to reference context, please add it in italics and also copy paste the original statement, not make one of your own. What I actually said was -- These two were from my personal collection, and I never, never, upload photos from my Personal Collection (except the autographs, o' course). But, this guy forced me to do so.[...]. GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are very Lucy personal, you had very big opportunity to take great snaps shop at Murshidabd in front of Mr Chief Minister. Please help us and upload some images of of Mr Chief Minister. I think you had not snaps only one. Please upload you images with Xdata/Metadata of raw file. After that we can move those images to commons or you can directly upload images in commons yourself. And please add details info date time. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your Third Opinion request: I've removed your request in regard to this and the next following listing from the list at the Third Opinion Project because, partially, there has not been adequate discussion of the matter here, which is a requirement for obtaining a Third Opinion. However, a larger reason is that the purpose of listing a file here is so that an administrator can make a determination of whether the file has adequate copyright permission. Unlike most matters at Wikipedia, that's not a matter to be determined through discussion and consensus and so a Third Opinion would be ineffective, if not inappropriate, here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication as to who actually took the photograph, and that is the person who owns the copyright - having a print of it in your personal collection is not sufficient -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Over at User talk:GaneshBhakt#Admin Help, the uploader has made it clear that he took the two photos himself, using a film camera - so these are scans, and there cannot possibly be any in-camera EXIF/metadata/RAW, as film doesn't have that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As above. GaneshBhakt (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2011 (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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• possible copyrighted image. the uploader was tring to upload previously upload copyrighted image of same well know chief ministre of West Bengal states of India. Within a one days how if he snaps the minister's images personally at Murshidabad. The there no x date. If the upload take snaps yourselp, I requiest please upload raw version of this image.Even his tlak page he mention one contraditory comments "These two were from my personal collection, and I never, never, upload photos from my Personal Collection" - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 14:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't participate in this discussion unless a person fixes the grammar (cause I cannot understand it). But all I have deciphered till now is that this guy may have a personal problem with me and is continously biting me. Also, he has made a bogus proposition and corrupted one of my statement. Next time you want to reference context, please add it in italics and also copy paste the original statement, not make one of your own. What I actually said was -- These two were from my personal collection, and I never, never, upload photos from my Personal Collection (except the autographs, o' course). But, this guy forced me to do so.[...]. GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are very Lucy personal, you had very big opportunity to take great snaps shop at Murshidabd in front of Mr Chief Minister. Please help us and upload some images of of Mr Chief Minister. I think you had not snaps only one. Please upload you images with Xdata/Metadata of raw file. After that we can move those images to commons or you can directly upload images in commons yourself. And please add details info date time. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication as to who actually took the photograph, and that is the person who owns the copyright - having a print of it in your personal collection is not sufficient -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Over at User talk:GaneshBhakt#Admin Help, the uploader has made it clear that he took the two photos himself, using a film camera - so these are scans, and there cannot possibly be any in-camera EXIF/metadata/RAW, as film doesn't have that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As above. GaneshBhakt (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellin077.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a photo of a copyrighted work. Eeekster (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:K seurat.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a photograph of a copyrighted object. Eeekster (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2011 (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.