Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems

Puerto Rican related images with problems

January 12th

January 12 is the 12th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on April 22 (112th day).

File:Frankie RuizAA.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Nominated for FFD. --Damiens.rf 13:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

File:Frankie RuizAA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Copyright information unknown for this non-free image. It was just copied from a personal webpage at a free web hosting service. Damiens.rf 17:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looks like a promo picture. Seen here [181.fm] and here [last.fm]. Source would be nice, and there are some better pictures out there. But I wouldn't worry unduly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know about the first site but the second seems to accept user contributions (I see an "edit" link right after his bio). Image was just copied from the internet. Wikipedia aims to be something different. --Damiens.rf 03:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a crop of the Edición Limitada album cover (see here). I'll nominate this for deletion shortly as it is one of those unacceptable use types. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_14#File:Frankie_RuizAA.jpg. I chose not to spam the uploader on this one - Peripitus (Talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, maybe we should have reached an agreement here before, but... --Damiens.rf 13:29, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Miguelángel Suárez.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 13:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miguelángel Suárez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Image not really found on source url. Also, since the subject is deceased since less than a year, and he was an active celebrity as of 2008, he was probably photographed professionally or not a lot of times, and we shouldn't immediately rule out the possibility of a free alternative coming out after some effort. Damiens.rf 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PRPOP page here has several pictures to choose from. I'd say just pick one of those. The very first one shows him looking very much like the film star he was but the one with him and his wife in 1985 is more natural. Depends what people want. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- O.K., I replaced the image with the one recommmended by Angusmclellan from the PRPOP page, therefore this one can be deleted. Later, I'll check to see if some of the images listed here can be found in PRPOP pages. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:50, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:La Fortaleza attack-1950.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - The newspaper El Imparcial is believed to not have renewed it's copyrights, what was required at the time. --Damiens.rf 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Fortaleza attack-1950.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image used in 3 different articles. It's surely not essential in all of them. On the other side, the image is said to have been created by "The Impartial", and I believe seeing some discussion about the images from this newspaper becoming PD. Damiens.rf 17:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
License fix Tony the Marine (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is it. El Imparcial is believed to not have renewed it's copyrights, what was required at the time. Thanks! --Damiens.rf 02:47, 13 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Carlos E.Chardon jpg.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: I agree to delete image since I uploaded another. --Tony the Marine (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<:File:Carlos E.Chardon jpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No copyright information (author, copyright status, date and purpose of creation) about this image. It was just downloaded from a website that happens to have used it (without much worry about attributions, apparently). Also, this man achieved his claim for notability (being the first Puerto Rican mycologist) before 1923, so some research could reveal some public domain image of him. Damiens.rf 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a better photo of him available in Mycologia, Vol. 57, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1965), pp. 840. Could I upload that picture, and use non-free rationale: Subject is deceased (free replacement cannot be made), To illustrate the subject in question, The photo is only being used for informational purposes. Something like that? At least we could credit this one back to the journal. - Chromatikoma (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rationale you suggest explains why the image is irreplaceable ("Subject is deceased") and why it is relevant ("to illustrate the subject in question"), but it fails to explain why is it ok for us to use it without permission. ( bit saying "for informational purposes" is irrelevant as far as I can see. Britannica also only uses images "for informational purposes", but I don't think they claim fair use is situations as this).
  - In the case of logos, album covers or promotional material, we're pretty sure the copyright owner would not object our use. In the case of displaying a copyrighted image in an article or discussion about the image itself, the fair use doctrine protects us explicitly. But in this case, we're just using someone's photo of a man because we want to show our readers what that man looked like. Our need or convenience is not a valid fair use defense. --Damiens.rf 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Damiens, I think I could justify the commercial usage part, given that it's a journal about mushrooms and not people, and his face has zero commercial value to the journal. However, in reading those NFCC, I can't really rationalize the Contextual Significance It doesn't really massively improve understanding of the article. At some point I'll probably raise a generalized question to Media Copyright questions about photos of dead people, just for my own curiosity. For this article, I'll keep looking for a free image. - Chromatikoma (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think this rationale is valid. Suppose (for the sake of the argument) that Britannica uses this image on his bio, and then the journal sends them a DMCA takedown-notice.... and Britannica replies with "our use is according to US law since the journal only cares about mushrooms". I don't think it would work. Them point is that, once they hold the copyrights of a photo, they can control its usage for any reason. We can only use it with a license or a (well-grounded) fair use claim. --Damiens.rf 14:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another file from the Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration digital collection from the UPR but I'm not sure what is the copyright status. --Jmundo (talk) 04:39, 3 March 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Francisco matos paoli.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: All concerns Fixed - Tony the Marine (talk)

File:Francisco matos paoli.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No copyright information (author, copyright status, date and purpose of creation) known about this image. Also, it is not found on the source webiste (that, in any case, doesn't seem a website much worried about attributing the authorship of the images it uses). Damiens.rf 17:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - "OTRS" Tony the Marine (talk) 06:26, 31 March 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rafael Carrion .jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: All concerns Fixed - Antonio Martin (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rafael Carrion .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No copyright information (author, copyright status, date and purpose of creation) about this image. It was just downloaded from a website that happens to have used it (without much worry about attributions, apparently). Damiens.rf 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Tony the Marine (talk) 04:34, 12 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Paquito Cordero.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paquito Cordero.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image not really found on source. All I see is a pages asking me for a $10.95 fee for accessing their services. From what I understood, that is a newssource of some sort and (if they really own this image's copyrights) WP:NFCC#2 concerns are raised. Damiens.rf 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image could be deleted Tony the Marine (talk) 22:19, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Olga Mendez.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 03:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olga Mendez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image copied from a news source showing a recently deceased (6 months) public figure. As a former Senator in NY, I'm sure there are PD official images of her around. Damiens.rf 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image can be deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:36, 12 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Antulio Segarra2x2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - A different source says this comes from the army, and not from a newspaper. --Damiens.rf 13:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antulio Segarra2x2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image said to be originated from a newspaper, used in 3 different articles. It's surely not necessary in all these articles, and I do have WP:NFCC#2 concerns over it use at all. As a Militar, official PD images of him should exist. Damiens.rf 18:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, if {{PD-US-not renewed}} would apply since the newspaper in question ceased to exsist (without any buyers) in 85. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- One of the books which I have has the same images of some of the members of the 65th Infantry listed as "Courtsey of the 65th Infabtry Regiment U.S. Army", I will fix the image file with the info. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:22, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Freddie Prinze.jpg

File:Freddie Prinze.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Copyright status unknown for this non-free image. It was just copied from nndb, that works by user submission and is not much carried about image's authorship. Damiens.rf 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ramiro Colon.JPG

File:Ramiro Colon.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

The source site says this non-free image belongs to newspaper El Mundo and states "Todos los derechos reservados". WP:NFCC#2 applies. Images from news sources are to be avoided. Having served as a Senator, official PD images of him should be available. Damiens.rf 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One quibble. The subject served in the Puerto Rican Senate, not in the United States Senate. This does have a significant bearing on the availability of {{PD-USGov}} images, although it doesn't change NFCC #2 in the least. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Damiens, here is the situation with this image. I have searched everywhere for a replacement image and I have not found any, it seems as if the image of Colon is not replaceable. This image was taken in the 1950s, therefore it is expected that "Todos los derechos reservados" of the newspaper El Mundo would appear as such in the digital copy of the Digital Library of the University of Puerto Rico. The newspaper ceased operations in the 1980s altogether, it was not purchased by another entity, it simply shut it's doors due to a strike and stopped to exsist, therefore it is highly unlikely that it renewed it's copyright. I believe that this is a case similar to "El Imparcial" where the image was published (1923 through 1963) with notice but the copyright was not renewed and therefore that it is in the public domain due to copyright expiration. So, what do you think? Tony the Marine (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I honestly do not know what happens on these cases. We need to ask some lawyer what happens to copyrights that once belonged to now dismantled organizations. Is it inherited? Is it dismissed? We need some expert opinion opinion here. --Damiens.rf 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here the history. The collection of images from the newspaper El Mundo was auctioned, and then acquider by the Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña (Puerto Rico Digital Library). While they phisically own all the photos, they only own the copyrights for those created by employees of El Mundo. As they explain, some images were produced by freelance photographers and even by news agencies like Associated Press and the like. Images from El Mundo are not public domain at all, which is really bad news, since that's a valuable collection and it is available online.
    
    From the source url (in the website for Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña itself) I couldn't tell if this image is from an employee, a freelance or from a news agency. They say "Todos los derechos reservados (All Rights Reserved), but do not says who reserves the rights. --Damiens.rf 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    
    More info here. They do have a process for asking for permission for publication of the images (only those from El Mundo employees), but the text seems to imply print, ignoring online publications. --Damiens.rf 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me then that there is a possiblity that we can use it as Non-free content since, they do not say who reserves the rights and it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Ramiro L. Colon" illustrates the subject in question and there are no free equivalent which is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. Biblioteca Digital Puertorriqueña acquired the copyrights and we have sourced and credited them for the picture, plus we've added a proper rationale. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry. I don't see how any of these addresses the concerns I have carefully raised. I honestly fail to see how "irreplaceability", "illustrates the subject" and "sourced and creditfor the picture" could be of any help regarding the problems I have raised. And, of course, I would not call that rationale "proper" myself. It only says (1) the man is dead and (2) the image will be used on his bio and "articles related to the subject". The rationale not only fails to explain why is the use ok, but it also actually states that the image will be used improperly (in articles "related" to the subject). --Damiens.rf 16:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio S. Pedreira.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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- concerns taken care of.Antonio Martin (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio S. Pedreira.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image not really found on source url (that's just a link to a websites's terms of use). It's used decoratively in at least one article. Also, the subject was 24 years old in 1923 (and doesn't seems much older on this photo) so, some effort may reveal public domain images of him. Damiens.rf 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed' - sourced and everything. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:49, 3 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PFC Jose Ramon Sanchez.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 OTRS ticket granted. -Tony the Marine (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PFC Jose Ramon Sanchez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No evidence (verifiable source) this image was created by a U.S. Marine Corps employee. Not every image of military people is created by military people. Damiens.rf 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an OTRS request to his brother, will wait for a response. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Permission has been signed and forwarded to OTRS. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's the OTRS ticket number? --Damiens.rf 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The permit was forwarded, now we have to wait for the OTRS ticket number. Since they are backed up in their work, I'll give them at least seven days before having someone there check on the status. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket number "2010020310046673" has now been posted. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:11, 6 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Antonio Rodriguez Balinas.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed. Source attributing the image to the army found. --Damiens.rf 13:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio Rodriguez Balinas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. It was just downloaded from a websites user-forum. Damiens.rf 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted source which states "Courtsey of U.S. Army. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:AgustinRC.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AgustinRC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No evidence (verifiable source) this image was created by a U.S. Marine Corps employee. Not every image of military people is created by military people. Image was just download from one of the uploader's websites. Damiens.rf 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Posted source which states "Courtsey of U.S. Army. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jose Coll y Cuchi.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: All concerns Fixed - Source provided which dates as 1917. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jose Coll y Cuchi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Replaceable non-free drawing used in 3 different articles. Source is just a website that happens to use the image. Damiens.rf 18:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Source with image dated 1917. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 21 April 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Joe Cuba.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted - --Damiens.rf 19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joe Cuba.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image used decoratively in some articles (maybe usable at the bio). Damiens.rf 18:24, 12 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Barretto.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted - --Damiens.rf 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barretto.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. It's not found on the source url (that seems some news site). And it's used decoratively on some articles. Damiens.rf 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will delete, other images in article. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:12, 26 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:María Cadilla de Martínez.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: All concerns Fixed - Source and OTRS provide Tony the Marine (talk)

File:María Cadilla de Martínez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Google docs is not a valid source. Due to age, PD images of this woman should exist (maybe even this one, once properly attributed). Damiens.rf 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Tony the Marine (talk) 06:57, 1 April 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jesus Colon.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - reasonable source provided and image removed from peripheral articles.

File:Jesus Colon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Nothing know about the images's copyright holder. Image is not found on source is said to be both public domain (for no special reason) and non-free. Used decoratively in some articles. Damiens.rf 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - The reason that the image is used in three articles is becauseone is his biography, in the Nuyorican Movement article because he is the "Father" of the movement and in Puerto Rican Literature, becasue he is the first Puerto Rican whose literary work was a cross over success. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the valid reason for using this image in three different articles (considering it's non-free). --Damiens.rf 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the valid and logical reson for two of the articles 1. His biography, 2. He is the "Father" of the Nuyorican Movement, the guy who started it all. He can be removed from Puerto Rican Literature, that'll be fine. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point. I don't think we need to know what Jésus Cólon looked like to understand the Nuyorican Movement. The movement would have been no different if he had not been bald or used no glasses. --Damiens.rf 23:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know Damiens, after thinking about it, I realize that you are right. Had the image been PD, it would have been fine to include in the other articles, but since it isn't I proceeded to removed it. By the way, Peter Sanchez sent the permit for usage to OTRS of the image of PFC Jose Ramon Sanchez mentioned up above. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:20, 29 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rene Marques.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rene Marques.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No source. Image is at Commons and as a source uses just a link back to Wikipedia. --Damiens.rf 18:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:04, 15 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:IsolinaFerre.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - Thanks to Jmundo. I've also added a link to the Centros Sor Isolina Ferré and deleted the unused revision just to keep all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IsolinaFerre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Nothing known about the copyright status of this non-free image. It was just download from a page that uses images without attribution. Damiens.rf 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded better version from the Smithsonian Latino Center with attribution to "Centros Sor Isolina Ferré". --Jmundo (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Since new version was uploaded - Delete Tony the Marine (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, the new version was uploaded to this file. --Jmundo (talk) 22:29, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jose Torres1.jpg

File:Jose Torres1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. It was just downloaded from a fan's page. Also, the subject died recently, so some effort may produce a free image. The bio currently have 2 non-free images of him, which is unnecessary. Damiens.rf 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoseCheguiTorres.jpg

File:JoseCheguiTorres.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. It was just downloaded from website that use a lot of images (and I confess I don't fully understand the purpose). Also, the subject died recently, so some effort may produce a free image. The bio currently have 2 non-free images of him, which is unnecessary. Damiens.rf 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several photos of Torres, but most are credited to the Associated Press. The only one that was taken by an independent author is this one, but he is reserving the copyrights. Perhaps we can ask him... - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a nice photo. I vote for Marine to try to contact the Flickr user :) . --Damiens.rf 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lata de Coco Lopez.jpg

File:Lata de Coco Lopez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Picture of a copyrighted image. Maybe usable under fair use, but probably not on 2 different articles;. Damiens.rf 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I have taken the image out of one of the articles and left it in the Coco Lopez article. In the event that for some reason that article is deleted, I will then add it once more to the article of the inventor. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a photo of a Coco López can should be easy for anyone living in Puerto Rico, including me. However, I'm not sure which rationale should be used in a self-taken photo of a can. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I asked for help one this one. I'm also not sure how to tag this image. --Damiens.rf 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this one does not have a problem at all. Otherwise we would have to delete every single image of every restaurant or building which contains an advertisement image of any product. For example, an image (picture) of "Times Square" will contain a giant image of an advertisement of "Coca Cola" was is in itself a copyrighted trademark. Are we going to delete someone's upload of "Times Square" or "Picadilly Circle"? Tony the Marine (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfonso Valdes2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - Source identified, rationale will be fine-tuned: no problem here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfonso Valdes2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Copyright information unknown for this non-free image. It was just copied from a personal webpage at a free web hosting service. Damiens.rf 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed- Found and fixed source. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's exactly the fair use justification for using this image? I understand it's useful and "irreplaceable" (under our current standards). But there are reason to believe the copyright holder wouldn't reject or that we have a defense for such rejection? --Damiens.rf 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current image was not found in the first family source (it was another image). I had deleted that one and uploaded the new image, but forgot to update the sourve at the time. I'm not too savvy (you know me), the current image found in the book are courtesy of the "Puerto Rican Institute of Culture" which is a government institution. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then that we can argue that, as the "Puerto Rican Institute of Culture" has an interest in spreading information about Puerto Rican Culture, it would not object an educational use of its images. I'll write a rationale sometime later. --Damiens.rf 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite their warning: "La publicación de dicho contenido en este portal no constituye una cesión de los derechos sobre dicho contenido o una licencia para utilizar dicho contenido sin obtener el consentimiento previo del Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña.". Of course this only refers to the images (and text) on their website... not sure what to expect as a general rule... --Damiens.rf 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those not trained in the Royal Language:

"dicho contenido" -> said content
"'este" -> this
"cesión" -> abdication
"derechos" -> rights
"sobre" -> over
"utilizar" -> to use
"obtener" -> to acquire
"consentimiento" -> permission

--Damiens.rf 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, the "warning" is in regard to the usage of content from their website which does not contain any of the images. The images came from a book which is used to spreading educational information about Puerto Rican Culture and is not published by the institute. Thank you Damiens for offering to fix the rationale. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:46, 15 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Potriat of H.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potriat of H.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Picture of a painting. The copyright belongs to the painter (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with deletetion Tony the Marine (talk) 21:36, 12 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Potriat of Santiago.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potriat of Santiago.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Picture of a painting. The copyright belongs to the painter (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with deletetion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine 69-71 (talk • contribs)

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

File:Potriat of C.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potriat of C.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Picture of a painting. The copyright belongs to the painter (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with deletetion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine 69-71 (talk • contribs)

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

File:Potrait of F.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potrait of F.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Picture of a painting. The copyright belongs to the painter (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with deletetion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine 69-71 (talk • contribs)

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

File:Monasrerio San Francisco.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Withdrawn - Image is really from the uploader. --Damiens.rf 02:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monasrerio San Francisco.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is not a picure of a picture. I took this picture 26 years ago, when I visited Santo Domingo with an old Polariod Camera. That is why the condition of the picture is a little messed up in the upper corners. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the mistake. Nomination withdrawn. --Damiens.rf 02:58, 13 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pachin91.jpg

File:Pachin91.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since User: Soundconsulting claims to be the copyright owner of various of the images listed on this page, I left him/her a notice to respond to the concerns raised here. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPfourteenthAlbum.jpg

File:HPfourteenthAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all of these album covers can be handled with this template [1], I don't have time to deal with it right now, but perhaps someone else could. - Chromatikoma (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are just used in a gallery. I'm not sure this is tolerated. --Damiens.rf 23:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right... One of these album covers is likely sufficient. Perhaps just their debut album? Here's the WP Policy which forbids WP from having a large collection of images with little to no text: Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY The pictures must be presented in an encyclopedic context. I would expect to see a maximum of 1 album cover perhaps, if any at all, unless there were some highly notable features on the cover. - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm okay with deleting all of these HPS album covers, neither seem to be in use at a relevant article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPtwelfthAlbum.jpg

File:HPtwelfthAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPtenthAlbum.jpg

File:HPtenthAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPsecondAlbum.jpg

File:HPsecondAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPthirdAlbum.jpg

File:HPthirdAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPfourthAlbum.jpg

File:HPfourthAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPfifthAlbum.jpg

File:HPfifthAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPsixthAlbum.jpg

File:HPsixthAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPseventhAlbum.jpg

File:HPseventhAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPninthAlbum.jpg

File:HPninthAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPeleventhAlbum.jpg

File:HPeleventhAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HPeighthAlbum.jpg

File:HPeighthAlbum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Album cover said to be public-domain and self made (which is most likely a mistake), used in a decorative gallery. Damiens.rf 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pachin92.jpg

File:Pachin92.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, all of the images exhibited in the Auditorium were donated for public use. The Municipality of Ponce should be able to confirm this, but I only found a phone number (787-284-4141) and physical address (Municipio Autónomo de Ponce, Apartado 331709, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00733-1709) for contact. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This could be resolved with an otrs mail, where they say the own the copyrights and donate it to the public domain. --Damiens.rf 14:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pachin93.jpg

File:Pachin93.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pachin96.jpg

File:Pachin96.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pachin97.jpg

File:Pachin97.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soundconsulting (notify | contribs).

Picture of a picture. The copyright belongs to the original author (that is not attributed). Damiens.rf 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RubenGomezColon.jpg

File:RubenGomezColon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Copyright status unknown. Image was just downloaded from a web forum. Damiens.rf 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Philadelphia Athletics Historical Society has a photo of an eldery Gómez holding a photo of his younger self here. We might be able to get their permison to use it under a ticket. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coimbre.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 12:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coimbre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Non free image lacking copyright information. Was apparently downloaded from a fansite but the url is no longer working. Damiens.rf 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with Delete Tony the Marine (talk) 22:18, 15 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Joseph Unanue.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted - --Damiens.rf 15:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Unanue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Source says Copyright of University of texas, and not "a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee". Am I missing something? Damiens.rf 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Fine with delete Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC), Will attempt to fix. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Forget it, delete - person is still alive and no PD's found. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:48, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Raul Rios Rodriguez .jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 OTRS ticket granted. -Tony the Marine (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raul Rios Rodriguez .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Image not found on source. No evidence this drawing is the work of the U.S. government. Damiens.rf 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Fine with Delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the image can be found at here. Image is a photo rather than a drawing. Image on this site shows scanner exif and I think that when they interviewed him, he might have brought in the photo to be uploaded. I thought then that it might be worth asking them if they know the image's provenance and have emailed the archives - Peripitus (Talk) 07:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no luck - sent emails to different addresses. All bounced due to the mailbox being unknown or closed. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legwork seems like the next thing to try. It's a bit far for me to walk, so I'll see if we can find a volunteer who could visit the museum in person and ask. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will get in touch with the proper person in regard to this image. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good news - Permit for usage of the image has been signed by the copyright holder and has been forwarded today to "OTRS". Now, we must wait for a ticket number. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- "OTRS" ticket# 2010020310044424. 22:20, 10 February 2010 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:O'Niell2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - A source was found and, since the image belong to a cultural institute, it's believed that our use is inline with their intentions. --Damiens.rf 12:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:O'Niell2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Source not working. No copyright info known. Damiens.rf 19:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found and Fixed source. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a valid fair use rationale for this one. Yes, the image was used on "Figuras Historicas De Puerto Rico, Vol. 2", but what gives us the right to use it on Wikipedia? The image is surely useful and seems irreplaceable under our practical criteria, but what arguments would we have if the copyright holder contest the current use or what reason do we possibly have to believe he/she is unlikely to contest that? --Damiens.rf 12:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Rationale has been expanded letting it be known that that among other things, it will be used only in non-profit educational Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think being educational and non-profit give us a blanket permission for using copyrighted material. When the copyrighted work is what is being commented about, then the "educational" rationale makes sense. But in the case of this photo (and some others on this page), we're just conveniently using a headshot to illustrate a biography. Any educational text-book or (serious) website or printed encyclopedia would have to pay for such use. --Damiens.rf 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, re-checked book which states all photos are courtesy of the "Puerto Rican Institute of Culture" which is a government institution. My bad, will post on File page. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. I guess we can assume the institute is interested in spreading the knowledge about PR figures, and by using this image on our project we're actually helping them, instead of replacing them. --Damiens.rf 12:49, 19 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Juan Cordero 72.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - valid source found. --Damiens.rf 15:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juan Cordero 72.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No evidence (verifiable source with copyright info) this image was created by a U.S. Marine Corps employee. Not every image of military people is created by military people. Damiens.rf 19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Updated with source which states "Courtsey of the 65th Infabtry Regiment U.S. Army" Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rodriguez pedro 72.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - valid source found. --Damiens.rf 15:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rodriguez pedro 72.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No evidence (verifiable source with copyright info) this image was created by a U.S. Marine Corps employee. Not every image of military people is created by military people. Damiens.rf 19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Updated with source which states "Courtsey of the 65th Infabtry Regiment U.S. Army" Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:CarlosRodriguezSantiago1.jpg

File:CarlosRodriguezSantiago1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. It was just downloaded from a homage website that does not attributes the image. Damiens.rf 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tis widely used, including at the vatican. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The image is certainly widespread, it is the only photo of him that I have seen published. And not only published, but published in every single major paper, including Primera Hora, El Nuevo Día and El Vocero. Regardless, the Diócesis de Caguas is the entity responsible for his beatification, not to mention the one that has used the image most, they can be contacted for relevant information here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DeVillard.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 - OTRS ticket granted. Antonio Martin (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DeVillard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Image not really found on source. Damiens.rf 19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed added proper source. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like in #File:O.27Niell2.jpg above, we still need a rationale for using this copyrighted image. --Damiens.rf 12:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rationale has been expanded for both letting it be known that it will be used only in non-profit educational Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still same problem as #File:O.27Niell2.jpg. Discussion going on there. --Damiens.rf 01:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images found in the book are courtesy of the "Puerto Rican Institute of Culture" which is a government institution. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I stated in the Jesus Colon situation, I do not appreciate the reversal of my good-faithed closure of this discussion. The image has been fixed and the proper source and rationale provided as per the File:O'Niell2.jpg and therefore would meet the same criteria. What is to be discussed that hasn't been discussed in the last three days? Antonio Martin (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Martin, please understand the nature of the debate going on this page. This page is a compromise between me and the Wikiproject PR, in that I'll list images with problems here 100 days before considering them for proper FFD discussion, to allow for things to be resolved out of any rush. When the uploader agrees there's a problem, he will ask the image to be deleted himself. When I agree the problem has been fixed, I will close the discussion myself, showing that I no longer believe the image should be taken to FFD. There's no point in you closing discussions I start. This discussions are not "binding" of anything. If you close something I disagree with, I can always take it to proper FFD.
- I understand you must be acting on good faith, but you're seriously misguided. Relax, there's not harm that can be produced from this discussions being open. Stop closing them since it's pointless.
- I'll analyze this image later. --Damiens.rf 14:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "OTRS" - ticket number granted for images of the Institute Of Puerto Rican Culture added. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:41, 24 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PostersMarine.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PostersMarine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Orphan collage of many pictures that do not attribute the originals. Damiens.rf 19:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with deletion Tony the Marine (talk) 21:36, 12 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PostersNavy.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PostersNavy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Orphan collage of many pictures that do not attribute the originals. Damiens.rf 19:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with deletion Tony the Marine (talk) 21:36, 12 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:El Navy Poster.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted --Damiens.rf 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Navy Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Not found on source. Damiens.rf 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Opinion - This is one of those cases where the image in question was made by the U.S. Navy. It is a Navy recruitment poster driected towards Hispanics. The image originally came from here: El Navy, and as stated before, an original U.S. Navy advertisement made by the U.S. Navy and directed towards recruitment of Hispanics. Even though it was also found here [2] and the Navy may have changed the ad. it is still a work of the U.S. Navy (an obiviuos fact), therefore PD. (notice the gray edge with the rivets which is the pattern used on the poster and on the images on the webiste). The thing is, what if we uploaded the current recruitment ad. and let's say the Navy replaces it again a month from now? What to do? Tony the Marine (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this one is fine - obvious US navy source, even without the web link working. Internet archive was no help here - Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think I'm satisfied with "obvious". This opens the door for falsifications/fan-work. Fortunately, the visual information contained in the image is not that relevant for the article. --Damiens.rf 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I really don't think that this is obviously made by the Navy at all. In fact, this image was uploaded to WP in 2008, and the internet archive says this page has essentially remained the same since 2002. Here's the archive from 2002: [3] and here it is today [4] Also I agree with Damien.rf here, there's nothing in that image that is particular useful for the article, it doesn't say "El Navy" or even have any visible Spanish. If we just wanted a Navy poster there's plenty of those around, but I think the point is to show the Navy marketing to Hispanics, which is really questionable for this picture. -Chromatikoma (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make myself clear, insinuating that I did not obtain the image from where I said I did is just short of calling me a liar and that my friends I am not. Now, it is true that the image does not say "El Navy" and I agree that the image adds little to the article as Damien pointed out, therefore since it isn't worth the hassle, I have deleted it. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stay calm, Marine. Saying that you did not obtain the image from where you said you did is far from calling you a liar. One was just pointing out a possible mistake. You could have messed something while copying and paste the url, or the page could use those things the somehow "hide" the true url... --Damiens.rf 23:09, 22 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Fonseca louis.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed --Damiens.rf 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fonseca louis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Not found on source. No evidence of PD claim. Damiens.rf 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a free image File:Luis Fonseca Navy Image.jpg and replaced in use. Peripitus (Talk) 07:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed - Image taken by Wayne Nelmes, U.S. Navy, crop of http://www.stripes.com/heroes/_fonseca.jpg. see http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=29705 - Peripitus (Talk) 07:36, 15 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Felipe Birriel.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted - --Damiens.rf 14:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felipe Birriel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Nothing known about the copyright status of this image. Was downloaded from personal blogs and websites (2 sources provided). Damiens.rf 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:14, 26 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:LesterMartinez.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - A very reliable source was found. --Damiens.rf 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LesterMartinez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Not found on source. Damiens.rf 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Original source which no longer works was http://www.atmeda.org/news/selected2002.htm . Another source would be: http://www.jhu.edu/jhumag/0405web/alumnote.html (Notice flags in the background which indicate that it is an official military picture.) Tony the Marine (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it "looks" official, but I don't think we want to allow ourselves to judge images' copyright status by its contents. --Damiens.rf 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you kidding? Who in the right mind is going to take a picture using the same background use by the federal government for official photos and claim copyright? I say we use common sense on this one, close the discussion and move on to more pressing issues. --Jmundo (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not kidding. The guy is alive and from the military. There's no reason at all to use an image of him that is not sourced and freely licensed beyond any doubt. No point in starting this bad precedent on this case. --Damiens.rf 23:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original source can be found at the web archive. In 2002, he was working as the "Commanding General, USAMRMC". I will try to search for a PD image as time permits, but I'm sure this can survive FFD per common sense. --Jmundo (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a .mil or .gov source, unfortunately. --Damiens.rf 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In book appendix of "The City's

The City's Many Faces: Glenneding of the Arroyo Center--Marine Corps Warfighting Lab-J8 Urban Working Group Conference on Joint Urban Operations"; by: Russell Glenn (Author) "; Publisher: RAND Corporation; ISBN-10: 0833028146; ISBN-13: 978-0833028143, the image of Martinez appears as "Photo US Army". Tony the Marine (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Great job. The book is completely reliable in this regard, since it even lists the Army as one of the authors. I have fixed the information on the file description page. --Damiens.rf 13:52, 25 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:EnriqueMendez.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:EnriqueMendez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Not found on source. Damiens.rf 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with Delete Tony the Marine (talk) 22:27, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Villaronga2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - OTRS ticket granted. --Damiens.rf 12:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villaronga2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Not found on source. No evidence of PD. Damiens.rf 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will get permission for OTRS. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Owner sent permit to OTRS today. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OTRS ticket # 2010011410049571 granted. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:19, 17 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Allen and troops.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 12:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allen and troops.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No valid source. No evidence this wasn't made by the media instead of by someone at the army. Damiens.rf 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed link to source Tony the Marine (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That site itself gives me no special reason to believe this image to be PD. Good well-sourced PD images from the military are easy to get. We have not reason to rely on personal-projects websites. --Damiens.rf 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand, no problem with deletion. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 14 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:EvaristoRiberaChevremont.jpg

File:EvaristoRiberaChevremont.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No copyright info. Image just download from a website the uses images without attribution. Damiens.rf 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this one should be kept. The source is not a tribute site but a respectable educational online resource endorsed by the Puerto Rican Department of Education. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it doesn't seems much worried about copyrights or attribution. Wikipedia uses a higher standard. --Damiens.rf 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Tony, this is a respectable online source in Puerto Rico. , I suggest we stop the accusations, unless we have clear evidence that this institution is violating copyright law. --Jmundo (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The page has a "Derechos Reservados" pages that explains their instance on use of copyrighted work.
      "Ocasíonalmente hacemos referencia a material expuesto, difundido, divulgado y publicado en Internet sin restricciones o desautorización de sus autores, y se presenta tal y como fue divulgado en la World Wide Web, sin alteraciones."
    - Basically, they say the copy stuff from the internet whenever it has not been explicitly unauthorized. And:
      "Proyecto Salón Hogar retirará, cualquier imagen y/o artículo que sea reclamado como propio por cualquier autor y para ello se deberá mostrar evidencia inequívoca de su © autoría intelectual y/o ® registro."
    - Basically, they say they will remove any content if you prove unequivocally you own the copyrights.
    - They instance on copyrights is one that reverts the rights. They use any content they feel in need and expect the copyright holder to go after them. We should never use images sourced this website. They are not a source in the sense of NFCC. --Damiens.rf 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The copyright page clearly says that not all images are free, some are copyrighted. They make a blanket statement that they believe they are within fair-use policies. Unfortunately WP's policies are much more strict, in that they demand proper documentation, and images on WP should be free of copyright unless there is no possible alternative. I feel strongly that this particular website could not be used as a source for statements of copyright. We could pose the question to Media copyright questions if you would like. - Chromatikoma (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, well, my understanding was that the scope of this project was to "fix" the images with problems, but this is looking more like a deletion discussion. --Jmundo (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sorry you feel that way, but I've spent a lot of time already looking for free pictures to replace the images here that have problems. I'm not saying to delete this photo at all, just find a better source for the documentation. I'll keep looking, and I'd encourage you to do the same. Don't worry, you've got until April 22nd. - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 13th

January 13 is the 13th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on April 23 (113th day).

File:WILLIAM D. MORGAN.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - It would be a strange state of affairs indeed if this photograph was to be the same size as the one that the Wayback Machine added a placeholder for, and was used in the same context, but wasn't in fact the same picture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:WILLIAM D. MORGAN.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Image not really found on source. Without verifiable copyright information, we can't says this is a work of a U.S. Marine Corps Marine or employee. Being a Marine, there should be official PD pictures of the subject around. Damiens.rf 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AGF Source (federal government website) found at the web archive 1. The image is not available anymore but the placeholder has the same dimensions as the one uploaded to Wikipedia. --Jmundo (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed source - I posted the source that you provided in the image's file page. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:03, 24 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Usmcmayaguez.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - image attributed to USMC - Antonio Martin (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-closed. There's no problem here now I think. Site clearly credits the USMC. I've uploaded a larger version. But perhaps if we can find a volunteer we could get a better quality version from the USMC archives? Worth a try I think! Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Usmcmayaguez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Image was just downloaded from a free web-hosting portal. Without a real source, we can't says this is a work of a U.S. (not every picture of military people is taken by military people). Marine Corps Marine or employee. Being a Marine, there should be official PD pictures of the subject around. Damiens.rf 03:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - posted new source with image which states that the photo was a courtesy of the United States Marine Corps via A. Grandolini. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:19, 15 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bougainville-mud.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed. - All ok! I guess this is probably as good as the image would be, unless some poor soul had to lug a damn big camera through all that mud. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bougainville-mud.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No evidence (verifiable source) this image was created by a U.S. Marine Corps employee. Not every image of military people is created by military people. Image was just download from a memorial website that does not attributes the images it uses. Damiens.rf 03:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and Keep - The image is from http://www.3div.usmc.mil/dev/index1.asp?NM=hqbn&PG=commco the an USMC official website. I will make the source change in the image file. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:04, 15 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 18th

January 18 is the 18th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on April 28 (118th day).

File:De Arellano with awards cropped.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - source provided. --Damiens.rf 13:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Arellano with awards cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gmsmith558448 (notify | contribs).

No source. We can't verify this image is really from the navy (although it "looks" from the navy). Damiens.rf 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - The source is the official magazine of the United States Submarine Force. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:15, 18 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:JJvaldez.jpg

File:JJvaldez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No source. Damiens.rf 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Sourced. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, double check this source. I've consulted a copy of this book and there's no such image on page 154. --Damiens.rf 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is strange indeed, because I also have a copy and and it has the same picture, I wonder if your copy is a different edition. I cn check other books, but it is strange. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's a link to google books of p. 154 of this book: [5] While it wouldn't include the actual image in the google result, it does place a "Copyrighted Image" placeholder there, and there is none. This book is available in my local library, so I could consult it later this week if needed. - Chromatikoma (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked other books and NADA. However, in the Fall Of Saigon Marine Association, LtCol. Jim Kean, USMC, in his "after action report April 17 - May 7, 1975", states that the picture was taken while MSgt Valdez was receiving awards for the Fall of Saigon (Operation Frequent Winds) [6]. The image was taken while the subject in question was a member (employee) of the United States Military in his military uniform and included in the USMC "After Action Report" prepared by LtCol. Jim Kean, who was in command of the embassy evacuation on April 30, 1975, hence a work of the United States Government. The copyright holder is the person who took the image which in this case was by an employee or member of the United States Military during the course of the person's official duties for a Federal institution which in this case was the United States Military. The image by appaering in an official US military document is PD. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how you can know that it was taken by an employee of the US Military? If you look at the picture here: [7] you can see that text is bleeding through from the backside. Perhaps this was printed in a newspaper and the photo was taken by the press? - Chromatikoma (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also while the link you provided may have the transcript of the "After Action Report" I highly doubt those were the pictures included, especially since there's a photo of a 25th anniversary reunion there as well as a photo of the author's own grave. I was wondering what the caption is for the photo was in the book you originally cited? I'll take a look at the book tomorrow.- Chromatikoma (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously believe that it was taken by an employee of the US Military during the decoration ceremonies as being a member of the Marine Corps myself know is common practice. These images are normally taken by photographers who belong to the Public Relations section of the Corps. They in turn distribute these images to the press or publish them in the military media such as "Stars and Stripes". To my knowledge this image has never been published in any public newspaper. As far as I'm concerned, this image could be deleted, I could care less, but we have more then enougth time to find a source and that is good. Chromatikoma, I appreciate your help. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:German Rieckehoff Sampayo .jpg

File:German Rieckehoff Sampayo .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Not found on source. Nothing known about copyright (seems like a cropped photo). Damiens.rf 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As with some files above, this one needs a fair use rationale that explain why it is ok for us to use this copyrighted image. --Damiens.rf 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has a fair use rationale. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The current rationale does a poor job in explaining why we are we ok to use this image without permission from the copyright holder (that's what a fair use rationale is all about). The rationale only explains why the image is valuable to Wikipedia, followed by "Will not replace commercial use of image". --Damiens.rf 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that it will be "used only in non-profit educational Wikipedia". The fair use rationale used is the same that appears on Wikipedias criteria of what a fair use rationale is. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in #File:O'Niell2.jpg, being non-profit and educational is not a carte blanche for using unauthorized copyrighted works. --Damiens.rf 13:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more helpful here? What exactly you don't like about the fair use rationale for this image? It does has a proper source, do we have to ask for authorization when using an image under the Fair use policy? --Jmundo (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, fair use is exactly for using copyrighted images (or text) without permission from the copyright holder. We need some rationale for justifying such use, and what "I don't like" is that we have no such rationale on this case. That the image is useful for our purposes is not enough to make our use fair. --Damiens.rf 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, we are reading a different description page because then one for this file has a proper rationale based on WP:NFCC. --Jmundo (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the major issues is this policy Wikipedia:NFCC#8: "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." Item 8 reads "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Third pillar of Wikipedia is: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. I'm just not seeing the reason why we MUST use a non-free photo of him for the article. I wouldn't say that it helps the article necessarily, and it certainly doesn't increase my understanding of the subject. Perhaps if he had a large birthmark on his forehead like Gorbachev, then the photo would be necessary to illustrate this, and the photo would be discussed in the article as it is in the Gorbachev article. In that case, the photo is definitely necessary to illustrate the subject. But really here, it doesn't seem that it would be detrimental to the understanding of the subject not to have his face there. Of course the best solution is to find a free image, which should be out there. - Chromatikoma (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of tackling this issue is to contact the author an ask if he will release the photo into the public domain or a CC-BY-SA3.0 license: [8] and fill out an OTRS release. Here's the author's contact information if someone would like to request it: [9] - Chromatikoma (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem regarding WP:NFCC#2. The "rationale" does states "Will not replace commercial use of image", but give us no reason to believe that. Saying so does not makes it so. One way of making this statement acceptable would be providing a source for the statement "Image is early 1980's used as promotional", since promotional images are intended for wide distribution, and it's reuse does not replace it's original value. But I believe the "used as promotional" is probably mistaken on this case. --Damiens.rf 14:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Chromatikoma, I tried the link that you provided with the intention of getting an OTRS permit, but it led to nowhere. If you could get me the exact address, I'll do it. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, please try again. I also had some trouble with that page loading. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I just tried again and it loaded. It's his University page, has a mailing address, phone number, email address. Here's the contact link again [10] - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Chromatikoma, now it worked fine. I wrote to Mr. Mayo-Santana to ask for his permission to use the image. If he agrees then I'll send him the OTRS permit slip for his signature. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio Moreno.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted - --Damiens.rf 13:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio Moreno.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Not found on source. No evidence this is a work of the navy (not every picture of people of navy's cloths is produced by the navy). Damiens.rf 18:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the proper source [11] There was a missing period at the end. If you check here [12] it states that the image is non-free. The larger picture has a copyright watermark on it: [13] - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion of the image and will proceed to do so. Tony the Marine (talk) 10:02, 24 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Antonio Maldonado.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed book was identified and it credits la Fuerza Area. --Damiens.rf 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio Maldonado.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Source needs to be fixed. I could not identify what is "Resenas De Puertorriquenos Destacados Internationalmente, Tras las Huellas de Nuestro Paso". Damiens.rf 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - This is a publication of the Government of Puerto Rico for the Association of Employees of the Government. The photo is credited to the United States Air Force. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:52, 18 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Joe Negroni2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted - --Damiens.rf 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joe Negroni2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Invlaid source is just a webpage that happens to use the image. Nothing knwo about the author or copyright holder. Fair use rationale states that this is a promotional but no verifiable evidence is provided. Image is relevant and irreplaceable (in that the subject is dead), but a case is not made for ignoring the (unidentified) author's rights. Damiens.rf 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, will do. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Damien, I provided the following "Cropped image of Joe Negroni from: Life Magazine credited to Photo: Keystone/Getty Images." with the link. I'll let you check it out and decide. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Images from commercial images banks as Getty are the quintessential case of WP:NFCC#2 violation. I suggest we delete it right away. --Damiens.rf 20:08, 24 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:RamonaValdez.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - Womansmemorial is reliable enough to be believed when it says the image comes from USMC. --Damiens.rf 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RamonaValdez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Source is just a tribute site. It shouldn't be hard to find a well-sourced PD image for this military woman. Damiens.rf 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed- posted source which credits image to the UNited States Marine Corps. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:46, 18 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Rversace2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted. --Damiens.rf 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rversace2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Image was just copied from some homage websites. Nothing known about original author and/or copyright holder. We can't make a fair use claim for a non-notable photo without such information. Damiens.rf 18:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted- I have deleted the image Tony the Marine (talk) 02:07, 30 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:EstevesWP.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - --Damiens.rf 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:EstevesWP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No source. We can't even verify if this image is really what it's said to be. PD images of this subject shouldn't be hard to find. Damiens.rf 18:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Image is Official West Point Graduation picture of Luis R. Esteves taken in 1915, before 1923 copyright laws applied. Source: [14]. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can do better here. The source is a personal webpage on a free hosting site. While the image used there seems genuine, I believe this opens a bad precedent. As said, well sourced PD images of this subject shouldn't be hard to find. Doesn't he appears on that book on historical Puerto Rican figures? --Damiens.rf 13:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Very true. Unforunately his image doesn't appear in the book that I have on historical figures, then one of my associates (We are researching Hispanic contributions in WW I for a future book) reminded me that Esteves West Point image was included in the book "Hispanic Military Heroes" which I have. The image credited to the United States Military Academy. Info. "Hispanic Military Heroes"; Author: Virgil Fernandez; Pj. 154; Publisher: Vfj Publishing; ISBN: 9780967587615. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This seems likely to be acceptable... While I can't personally check this particular source right now, it seems likely this was taken pre-1923. Other photos, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was also in the same graduating class, look very similar. If necessary, I can obtain this book from my library. - Chromatikoma (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hm, I just checked and it would appear that VFJ Publishing is a self-published outfit, which is no good for WP:RS. I personally think this photo is pre-1923, and very likely official USMC, but I don't know if what we have is sufficient? Someone else who knows the rules better should comment. I'll see if I can find a better source at my library. - Chromatikoma (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The image is PD, it was obviously published before 1923. I dont see a problem here, we have reliable sources to verify that the guy went to West Point. --Jmundo (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the problem? Esteves graduated from West Point in 1915. He is pictured with his West Point Cadet uniform in a graduation picture which is credited to the United States Military Academy (not USMC). Virgil Fernandez is a noted military historian, so who cares if his book is a self published book? This is not about his book nor the written contents of his book. This is about the image and it so happens that the book is the source from which the pre-1923 image was obtained, which by the way is credited to the military academy. Eisenhower's (proof)and Bradley's, both whom graduated in the same class as Esteves, follow the same pattern therefore, do the math: per-1923 (1915) + United States Military Academy (origin of image) = PD. End of discussion. Antonio Martin (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys should settle down, not exactly making me want to help on this project. There's plenty of time to fix all of these, relax, breathe. - Chromatikoma (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment-I don't understand what your saying. What is there to be fixed in this case? The image is sourced and is an Official West Point Graduation picture of Luis R. Esteves taken in 1915, before the 1923 copyright laws applied. That has already been explained. There is no problem with the image which would justify nor hold a nomination for deletion in the future. Antonio Martin (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In a strict application of our policies, this image can't be trusted to be what it is said to be because, as far as we know, only self-published sources (a personal webpage in bellsouthpwp.net and a self-published book) said that it is what it's said to be. It could be a "forgery" or an hoax.
    - Now please understand that I know of any reason anyone would do such thing. But we don't use our personal opinions on theses cases. Every image should be treated the same under police, and we need a reliable source. I believe we can find one before April. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-You're right, there is is no point in rushing it. We must take into consideration that it is highly unlikely that the Esteves family would post a forged image on their website, which even though being a family page is not considered reliable by our standards, but non the less common sense tells us that this would not be the case. Antonio Martin (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is with pages published on free web hosting services. Anyone could be the author.
- Couldn't an OTRS be worked for this case? I believe an e-mail from a family member stating this image is really what it's said to be (or better, licensing a new, better image freely) would settle the problem beyond any doubt. --Damiens.rf 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I can have the family do an OTRS. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an OTRS request to family. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion here has got a bit confused. We don't used self-published sources as references. However, even self-published sources are allowed to speak for themselves. So are images. This image says "graduation photograph" which leads inexorably to the conclusion "published soon after creation". I feel that there is sufficient evidence that this image was either in the public domain at the time of creation or is now in the public domain due to pre-1923 (i.e. 1915) publication. An OTRS is very much second-best and I do not believe that it is necessary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) (Closing rationale by Angus, reverted by Damiens [15] --Jmundo (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Anyone can post an image saying anything into self-published books and websites. We all know it is very unlikely anyone would have any interest in faking this specific image, but we have no interest in opening such precedent here. Marine will probably get the OTRS confirmation for this one, and we have, like, a 80 days timeline. No need to rush-close this. --Damiens.rf 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Permit to OTRS has been sent by Jose David Esteves, with confirmation that the image was taken at West Point in 1915. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're my hero! --Damiens.rf 19:32, 26 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Betances2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted --Damiens.rf 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Betances2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No verifiable evidence of PD status. Damiens.rf 18:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. with Delete Tony the Marine (talk) 21:19, 19 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Victor Pellot10.jpg

File:Victor Pellot10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a news source lacks a solid rationale that explains why is it ok to ignore NY Time's rights on this photo. Damiens.rf 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to avoid conflicts, so give me an image that holds an example of the rationale that you want. That way I will be able to fix it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every use has a different rationale. In this case, this is a picture copied from a news source that is not famous by itself. I personally think there isn't much we can do about it. --Damiens.rf 03:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only hope here is to find a free picture of the guy, not one that is clearly copyrighted. I looked around a bit but was unable to locate one. - Chromatikoma (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I read through the article and noticed that he went by the name Vic Power for the majority of his career. If you search for this name you get a ton of baseball card images, ~~which I would guess could be used freely since they are clearly promotional items.~~ Here's a half decent image, but there are many others available: [16] - Chromatikoma (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I talked it over with an IP lawyer friend of mine. He said that use probably would *not* fall within fair use. They aren't true promotional items - they are a good that is sold. I would suggest though that people searching for a free image search using Vic Power as well, since there seems to be more published under that name. -Chromatikoma (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That is an uphill battle, at least the first few pages of Google searches bring a lot of MLB/collector's card images. Flickr does not have anything under "Victor Pellot" and a buch of random images of some band for "Vic Power". - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AngelMendez1.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - Permission received - licence is GFDL - Peripitus (Talk) 04:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AngelMendez1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

No evidence this image is a work of a U.S. Marine Corps Marine or employee. Damiens.rf 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - requested that family send permit to OTRS. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permit for usage sent to "OTRS" today January 19, 2009. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission received - OTRS link recorded in the image. Image released under GFDL - Peripitus (Talk) 04:01, 26 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

January 30th

January 30 is the 30th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on May 10 (130th day).

File:Manuel Zeno Gandia.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - Antonio Martin (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image not found on source. Most properly sourced images of this man will turn out to be public domain (due to copyright expired). Damiens.rf 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed- 1907 image is found on the right lower corner of "La Charca", de Manuel Zeno Gandía: temas y estilo; Editorial Plaza Mayor. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Does it mentions the approximate date of this image, so that we can put it on the image description page? --Damiens.rf 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, 1907. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:05, 7 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Mercedes Negron Munoz.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - Antonio Martin (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image not found on source. Properly sourced images of this woman before her 28th birthday will turn out to be public domain (due to copyright expired). Damiens.rf 21:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source fixed - Image on "De la herida a la gloria: la poesia completa de Clara Lair (Spanish Edition)"; (Foto credited to "El Imparcial", 1939)- Tony the Marine (talk) 01:32, 1 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Juan.antonio.corretjer.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Image was deleted - Antonio Martin (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing known about copyright holder. Image was just downloaded from a website that happens to use it and never attributes the author. Damiens.rf 21:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Tony the Marine (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source added says this image is from a newspaper ("El Diario La Prensa"). We usually don't use non-free images from news sources as this. There are always WP:NFCC#2 concerns. --Damiens.rf 14:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded new image from the gobierno.pr, rationale found at the description page.--Jmundo (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to play devil's advocate here and help clarify my understanding of copyright... Couldn't the PR government paid rights to use that photo, or made an agreement to use the photo for the cover only? They don't necessarily own the rights just because they used the photo right? The same publisher has published many books of art and poetry, but those aren't automatically PD. Here's a catalog of what they are publishing [17] Basically the argument would be that since they are a government entity, if that automatically puts things into PD, then I could copy those books page for page and publish them under my own name and sell them since they are PD. Seems difficult to believe. - Chromatikoma (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not making an argument under PD. If Tony agrees to delete the first one, this one can be kept under fair use. I thought that by uploading from gobierno.pr the fair use defense would be more easier (the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture goal is to promote culture not profit from images).--Jmundo (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will proceed to delete the image as you suggested Jmundo. Just to play devil's advocate here Chromatikoma, The Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, which is a Puerto Rican Government agency, aim is to promote culture and not profit from images. Now, in my sole opinion, it would be sort of ridiculous, for a government agency to pay for an image same as it would be ridiculous for the United States military, which belongs to the United States government to pay for the images of it's military personal. Now, you cannot copy those books page for page and publish them under your own name and sell them because you very well know that written content is copyrighted and only images are PD, that even applies to all of the US military websites and books published by the United States Government. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted Tony the Marine (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's absolutely incorrect that only images are PD. All of Project Gutenberg is PD text for example. [18] - Chromatikoma (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not stupid Chromatikoma, if that's what you think. Of course he was a poet and not a military person, in case you did not understand my statement, I was using both situations as an example. It seems as if you didn't understand my comment in the first place, therefore read it again. You are the one who stated "Basically the argument would be that since they are a government entity, if that automatically puts things into PD, then I could copy those books page for page and publish them under my own name and sell them since they are PD." which in my opinion is ridiculous since there are many educational websites and publications whose images are PD and not it's content, once again using as an "example" the websites and publications of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture and the US military. This is a site to help us look for solutions to the image problems and not for waste of time discussion, so if your going to help please be my guest. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not quite sure why you edited my comment. diff:[19] Yeah I misread your comment originally, reread it and edited my comment appropriately. Then you reverted my own comment? I realized you were using the military strictly as an example here. Please don't edit my comments, even if it is strictly to argue with me. Please breathe and understand that I'm strictly trying to improve the encyclopedia by using freely available non-copywritten material. I contacted an IP lawyer friend and he said it's quite possible that the cover image was paid for, even if it is a govt entity. We need to make sure that the image is free. I'm not getting dragged into personal wars. Please drop the hostility. - Chromatikoma (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My comments here were regarding this image File:Corretjer.jpg and I have listed it here [20] so we can keep the conversation relevant. - Chromatikoma (talk) 02:47, 9 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Luis Llorens Torres.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: OTRS granted- Antonio Martin (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image not found on source. Many properly sourced images of this man will turn out to be public domain (due to copyright expired). Damiens.rf 21:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed- but could not find a PD. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this one could be useful [21] Their copyright page says all content on their site is property of the EPR, but perhaps if someone contacted them they could give more details on the photo (hopefully pre-1923) or release into PD. - Chromatikoma (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the ICP are Public Domian per the Government of Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OTRS' - ticket granted and posted. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:13, 24 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jose guatier Benitez.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed --Damiens.rf 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete source. Any properly sourced images of this man will turn out to be public domain (due to copyright expired). Damiens.rf 21:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed- provided source. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:14, 2 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Julia de Burgos 2.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted --Damiens.rf 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not found on source. Image could not have been first published before 1923 as tagged. Damiens.rf 21:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Damiens, do me a favor and go to "Commons" and nominate this one for deletion. It takes me forever to get into "Commons". I found another image which is properly sourced which I will upload. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note- I went to commons and in the image's talk page requested that the image be deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:58, 31 January 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Antonio S. Pedreira.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Dup - This is a duplicated nomination. Sorry, --Damiens.rf 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image not found on source. A proper source may reveal this image to be public domain (due to copyright expired). Damiens.rf 21:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed-Found proper source and updated image file. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:57, 1 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 1

February 1 is the 32th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on May 12 (132th day).

File:Alfonso Valdes2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted --Damiens.rf 14:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free alternative available; File:Alfonso Valdés Cobián.jpg. Damiens.rf 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment - I rather keep File:Alfonso Valdes2.jpg, then the so-called free alternative image which per se has nothing to do with the article and whose content is not even described in the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I spoke too soon. I agree with you and will delete this image. I was referring to the "group" image. All is well. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:41, 2 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Montage San Juan.JPG

Montage that does not credits the individual photographies used. Damiens.rf 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a notice in the uploaders talk page. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio R. Barcelo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Fixed - --Damiens.rf 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete source. The id of this image on Library of Congress should be used on the template. --Damiens.rf 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed permanent link to LOC at Commons. --Jmundo (talk) 21:54, 2 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Antonio Barcelo.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Agreed to be deleted - --Damiens.rf 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image not found on source. Most proplerly sourced images of this man will be PD due age. --Damiens.rf 19:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that this image just be removed. There's a much better PD image on the article, and this image doesn't particularly add a lot to the article. - Chromatikoma (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, image deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:43, 3 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 8th

February 8th is the 39th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. Images in this group will be considered seriously for deletion if problems persist on May 19 (139th day).

File:Corretjer.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: OTRS granted - Antonio Martin (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corretjer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jmundo (notify | contribs)

I think the rationale needs some improvement for this image, so I have listed it here for discussion and improvement. We do not know that this image is owned by the PR government, even if an agency used it as a cover image. Things to fix this image would be: A) Determine the copyright status of the image, and if it is in PD, then it is free and is ok to use on WP. OR B) obtain proper licensing and release of this image such as a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license or into the PD. OR C) Find a new free image for use in the article. Please fix my template if I have listed incorrectly. Thanks, - Chromatikoma (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat it again. The image is not free and is not in public domain. The image is has a non-free rationale following the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. The image was uploaded from gobierno.pr (the PR government website). The site has a very clear statement about copyright: "The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, its agencies and public corporations have proprietary rights over all content appearing on this portal. (El Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, sus agencias y corporaciones públicas tienen derechos propietarios sobre todo el contenido que aparece en este Portal (1). --Jmundo (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmundo, thanks for the response. It also says that they reserve all rights on all content and there is no license to use the material without prior permission. Was such permission obtained? Here's the quote in Spanish ( Dichas agencias y corporaciones se reservan todos los derechos que existen o puedan existir sobre dicho contenido. La publicación de dicho contenido en este portal no constituye una cesión de los derechos sobre dicho contenido o una licencia para utilizar dicho contenido sin obtener el consentimiento previo de la respectiva agencia o corporación pública. ) Google translate puts it this way "These agencies and corporations reserve all rights that exist or may exist in such content. The publication of such content on this site do not constitute an assignment of rights to such content or a license to use such content without obtaining the prior consent of the respective agency or public corporation." Cheers, Chromatikoma (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Non-free policy and the Fair Use doctrine doesn't require us to obtain permission from the copyright holder. --Jmundo (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that really constitutes fair-use, as we aren't using the picture for commentary. It's simply something nice to include in the article. Would you mind bringing it up with the Media Copyright questions board, I would like to see what the consensus is there. [22] I would prefer that you bring it up so it won't appear that I'm creating any undue bias. If you don't really want to, I will attempt to present the case as neutral as I can. I really am interested in seeing if this is acceptable or not.- Chromatikoma (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is use to identify the subject, just like in hundreds of other articles. For example one recent kept at FFD was File:JD Salinger.jpg (the picture is not use for commentary in the article). Interesting enough, the Corretjer's image doesn't come from a private collection (where I can understand NFCC #2 concerns) but a government agency which role is to promote literature and culture. I'm sure this image of the "National Poet of Puerto Rico" meets the criteria for Non-free. I don't have anything else to add to the discussion. --Jmundo (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "Derechos Reservados" only applies to the written content. I'm sure that the images can be used under our Non-free policy and the Fair Use doctrine. Tell you what Chromatikoma, without knowing it, you gave me an excellent idea. You may not know it, but I am well contected with important political and military figures both in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico. I will e-mail the Honorable Kenneth McClintock, the Lt. Governor and former President of the Puerto Rican Senate who has a doctorate in law and ask him what is the situation in regard to the images of the Puerto Rican Institute of Culture is. He will know and I will post his answer and abide by it. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Tony, Please be sure to ask about this specific image from the cover of the book, and not just simply images on the website. I'm interested in hearing what he has to say, but I don't know if we should go by it 100%, as things here are decided by consensus, to the best of our abilities. Also it's important to note that WP's requirements are "more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." [23] Thanks for asking him, perhaps we can all learn something. - Chromatikoma (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- O.K., here is the answer from the Secretary of State/Lt. Governor of Puerto Rico in representation of the people of Puerto Rico:

"Tony, The images the IPC uses in its publications, as well as the portraits of Governors and First Ladies (which hang in La Fortaleza---although the Governors', that will hang at the State Department for 2 weeks beginning next Monday), Senate Presidents and House Speakers (which hang at the Capitol), the Secretaries of State photos, which hang at my Department, and so forth, are clearly in the public domain because: (1) nobody is paid for their continuous use, and, (2) the government does not claim payment from anyone from their reproduction and use. I hope this is of help to you.

Kenneth D. McClintock Secretary of State San Juan, Puerto Rico

I hope that this answers the question presented. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason he gives for this being "public domain" don't make much sense to me. Marine, you you agree to publish the original question and answer in Spanish (I suppose it was in Spanish) so that I can try to figure things out? Thanks, --Damiens.rf 20:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Damiens, I am more then happy to comply with your request. But, you must take into consideration that Mr, McClintock has a doctorate in international law and that his position is second only to the governor of Puerto Rico. My interactions with him are in English. My e-mail to him was as follows:

"Estimado Honorable Lt. Gov. K. McClintock, I know that you are a very busy person and I wouldn't bother you if for not a question that came up. Since you have a doctorate in law, I figured that no one is more qualified to answer my simple question. Are the images of famous Puerto Ricans used by the Puerto Rican Institute of Culture Public Domain? I am almost certain that the institute would not pay for the usage of images of famous Puerto Ricans that they honor in their publications and so on. Could you please inform me? Gracias. Tony Santiago

His response was in English and not in Spanish (he is fluent in both languages) as posted above. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - OTRS ticket granted and posted. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:31, 24 February 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.