Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 May 26

< May 25	May 27 >

May 26

File:Pallywood cover.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale: a non-free media cover in an article not about the film. In any case, even with a FUR, would fail contextual significance and the omission of the image would not be detrimental to understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2018 (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:Dimitrios Pagourtzis booking photo.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: relisted on 2018 June 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dimitrios Pagourtzis booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Amy Bishop booking photo.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: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent (1, 2, 3), the use of a non-free image of the shooter in an article about the shooting incident, as opposed to an article about the biography of the shooter, violates WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not increase the understanding of the shooting, nor would its removal be detrimental to that understanding. ℯ xplicit 02:38, 26 May 2018 (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:Aneurinbevan.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: Delete; deleted as G5 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is copyright marked ay NPG and is identified as being from Elliott & Fry-not unknown. We hope (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panglong Conference.jpg PD photo this one replaced. We hope (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Elliot & Fry Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Elliott & Fry died in 1903 & 1897 respectively and Elliot & Fry ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add or change to "non-free biog-pic" and add rationale - The US copyright is automatically restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. While the UK copyright may (or may not) have expired, the US copyright currently belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, which releases its 72 dpi copy under one of non-free Creative Commons licenses. Per WP:Copyrights and WP:non-U.S. copyrights, Wikipedia is bound to US law. Unsure when the image was first US publication occurred; the charts of copyright duration can help. George Ho (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We know that the image was published within the UK before 1996, due to when they were taken, especially since many of these were ministerial portraits, but as to your query about when the image was first published in the US, how do we know that it has ever been published there? JimmyJoe87 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... I re-read this page concerning UK copyright. Now I'm unsure when the image was first available in the UK. The image was sold to NPG in 1974. Assuming that it was first available in 1974, the UK law would still consider it copyrighted in its home country. Therefore, UK copyright would expire on 1 January 2045, seventy years after "first availability" in 1974. Meanwhile, if first US publication occurred more than 30 days after the assumed first UK availability, the US copyright would expire on 1 January 2070, longer than UK copyright. George Ho (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another comment - Moreover, if treated as "fair use", the image should be restricted to only one article. George Ho (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2018 (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:Arthurbottomley.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright marks and identified as being from Elliott & Fry-not unknown. We hope (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Elliot & Fry Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Elliott & Fry died in 1903 & 1897 respectively and Elliot & Fry ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add or change to "non-free biog-pic" and add rationale - The US copyright is automatically restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. While the UK copyright may (or may not) have expired, the US copyright currently belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, releases its 72 dpi copy under one of non-free Creative Commons licenses. Per WP:Copyrights and WP:non-U.S. copyrights, Wikipedia is bound to US law. Unsure when the image was first US publication occurred; the charts of copyright duration can help. George Ho (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We know that the image was published within the UK before 1996, due to when they were taken, especially since many of these were ministerial portraits, but as to your query about when the image was first published in the US, how do we know that it has ever been published there? JimmyJoe87 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a difference between "first US publication" and "first published in the US", though copyright of a foreign work may still belong to a non-US citizen, regardless of first location of publication. This page can explain UK copyright law. In this case, The NPG bought this image in 1996. Assuming that the image was first available to the public in 1996, the UK copyright would expire on 1 January 2067. The US copyright was already restored while the image was copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. Therefore, under the assumption of first availability in 1996, the US copyright would expire on 1 January 2092, ninety-five years after first availability. Of course, reliable sources should prove prior publication, but assuming the image to be non-free is the safe way for now. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - PD-URAA means it wasn't published within the US within 30 days actually, as this is what the licence says 'it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)', so what you just said was wrong. Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Umm... Template:PD-URAA describes three required conditions (using "and"), one of them saying, "it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries)". However, the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996 (nearly 50 years from 1946), so the URAA must have restored the US copyright. In other words, any possibility about the UK copyright applies to URAA-restoration. (1) If it were still publicly unavailable at the time, the image (as anonymous work) was still copyrighted in the UK. (2) If it became first publicly available on 1996 or prior, the image was still copyrighted in the UK. Either way, the US copyright was restored. Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Restored copyrights and Wikipedia:Public domain#Country-specific rules, both of them Wikipedia guidelines, apply. Well, I voted for "non-free biog-pic" based on those guidelines and US law, though I see your point about UK copyright. Still, I believe that NPG must have released it at the time of purchase, yet I guess it wouldn't affect how the US copyright was restored while UK copyright was still intact. George Ho (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2018 (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:Baronharlech.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is copyright marked at NPG and the photographer is identified as Bassano Ltd.-not unknown. We hope (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Ormsby-Gore 1936.jpg PD photo it replaced. We hope (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add or change to "non-free biog-pic" - The US copyright is automatically restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. While the UK copyright may have expired, the US copyright currently belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, which releases its 72-dpi copy under one of non-free Creative Commons licenses. Per WP:Copyrights and WP:non-U.S. copyrights, Wikipedia is bound to US law.
Unsure when the first US publication occurred; this is a little tricky. If the first UK publication occurred no later than 1931, then the US (yes, US!) copyright would expire on 1 January 1927. However, we need source proving that; otherwise, I would best assume that it is still copyrighted in some way. The charts of US copyright duration can help. George Ho (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - On second thought, best to assume that (per UK law) the year of first UK availability was 1974, so UK copyright would expire on 1 January 2045. Based on that assumed availability, the US copyright would expire on 1 January 2070. There should be reliable sources proving other prior publications, but we should safe assume the image non-free until proof of prior publication is found. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate. The photo was made available far before 1974, especially as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2018 (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:Marquesszetland.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is identified as from Bassano Ltd. at NPG-it's not unknown. We hope (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2nd Marquess of Zetland.JPG PD photo it replaced. We hope (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add or change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, a work-for-hire created by an anonymous photographer may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability. The image was first published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal, required by the US Copyright Act of 1909. For the UK copyright, the photo was sold to NPG in 1974, assumed to be the year of first availability. Under that assumption, the UK copyright would expire on 1 January 2045. Moreover, under that assumption, if the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996, the US copyright would be restored by the URAA for foreign works that failed to comply with the US 1909 copyright law. Then the US copyright would expire on 1 January 2070, way later than the expiration of UK copyright. Proof of prior publication should make my argument unsound, but let's safely assume the image to be non-free. George Ho (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
further comment - This image was released under one of CC licenses by the NPG. Therefore, if treated as fair use and non-free, the image may be okay to use. George Ho (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate. The photo was made available far before 1974, especially as it is a Government portrait, so we do not need to assume. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2018 (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:Richardcrossman.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is copyright marked at NPG with identification of Bassano Ltd.-not unknown. We hope (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can support re-license of this photo as non-free as person is deceased and we have no PD photo. We hope (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add or change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, for works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers, a photo may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because it was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. When will the US copyright expire? Even if we go by the year of creation, the first publication is essential. The chart of US copyright duration can help more. Under the assumption that the image was first available in the UK in 1974, the US copyright would expire on 1 January 2070. A reliable source proving prior publication is possible, making UK and/or US copyright early, but for now we should treat the image as non-free. George Ho (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
further comment - This image was released under one of CC licenses by the NPG. Therefore, if treated as fair use and non-free, the image may be okay to use as long as it's restricted to only one article. George Ho (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC); modified, 04:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2018 (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:LordFaringdon.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is copyright marked at NPG and identified as being from Elliott & Fry; not unknown. We hope (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can support re-license of this as non-free as we have no PD images for this deceased person. We hope (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Elliot & Fry Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Elliott & Fry died in 1903 & 1897 respectively and Elliot & Fry ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add "non-free biog-pic" - UK copyright may have expired on 1 January 2005 per year when the image was commissioned. However, US copyright was restored by the URAA on 1 January 1996 when the UK copyright was still intact. Therefore, the US copyright will expire on 1 January 2030, twelve years from now. Moreover, the image is released under one of non-free CC licenses. We can use it if fair use is asserted. However, it's used in more than one article; the image should be used in only one. George Ho (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2018 (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:Lordhertford.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is copyright marked at NPG and identified as being from Bassano Ltd.-not unknown. We hope (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can support re-license of this as non-free as we have no PD photo of the deceased person. We hope (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years.

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add or change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, the UK copyright expires in 70 years after first availability within 70 years after creation, i.e. if still unavailable on 1 January 1996, the UK copyright would have already expired. However, the photo was sold to NPG in 1974. Assuming that the photo became first available in the UK in 1974, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2045. Moreover, under that assumption, the US copyright would have been restored by the URAA on 1 January 1996 when the UK copyright would have been still intact. Also, the 72-dpi version of this image is released under one of non-free CC licenses. Unless another prior publication has been proven, let's treat it as asserted "fair use" and restrict it to only one article. George Ho (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2018 (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:Walterrunciman.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at PNG with copyright notation and identified as being from Bassano Ltd.-not unknown We hope (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:1905 Walter Runciman.jpg PD photo replaced by this. We hope (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(if kept) add/change to "non-free biog-pic" and add rationale, or delete (if verified free replacement is available) - Three images are used at "Walter Runciman, 1st Viscount Runciman of Doxford", including one at Commons. If unfree, the image may be replaceable by either File:Viscount Runciman of Doxford.JPG or File:Walter Runciman.jpg. However, the latter one looks (almost) similar to the NPG copy, whose photographer is identified as the late Walter Stoneman (d. 1958). The UK copyright of that copy will expire on 1 January 2029. I can take that image to FFD soon. Back to this image, we can use File:Viscount Runciman of Doxford.JPG if the nominated image fails WP:NFCC#1. However, it's tricky to tell whether the one currently at Commons is a "free equivalent" as it's just a sketch portrait.
If the nominated image meets all criteria of WP:NFCC, the "{{non-free biog-pic}}" should be added/used. The US copyright was restored on 1 January 1996 by the URAA. The UK copyright was probably extended under the assumption of the "first availability" clause for anonymous artistic works when NPG bought the photo in 1996. Assuming that the image became first available in 1996, the UK copyright lasts until 1 January 2067. Also, under that assumption, and based on the chart of US copyright, the US copyright lasts until 1 January 2092, longer than UK copyright. Unless a verified prior publication is found, let's treat this image as non-free. If kept, "fair use" rationale should be asserted. George Ho (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
further comment - Got exhausted from the lengthy argument above, so I forgot to say this. The 72-dpi version of this image was released under one of non-free CC licenses, so it would be safer to use for selected subsequent publications. George Ho (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
update - I have nominated another image at the separate discussion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 1#File:Walter Runciman.jpg. George Ho (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate. The photo was made available especially as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2018 (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:Lordplymout.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notation and identified as being from Bassano Ltd.-not unknown. We hope (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can support re-license of this as non-free as we have no PD photo of this deceased person. We hope (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years.

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. Assuming that the image became first available in 1974 when it was sold to NPG, the UK copyright would have extended the expiration date to 1 January 2045. Also, under that assumption, the US copyright would last until 1 January 2070, longer than the UK copyright. Furthermore, the 72-dpi version is released under one of non-free CC licenses, so the image is safer to use in that size or smaller than that. George Ho (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (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:Williammorrisson.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notations and identified as being from Bassano LTd.-not unknown. We hope (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Dunrossil-02.jpg PD file this replaced. We hope (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years.

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. NPG bought the photo in 1996. Unless a verified prior publication is found, let's assume that the image became first available in 1996 at the time of purchase and then treat it as non-free. Under that assumption, the UK copyright would expire on 1 January 2067, and the US copyright would expire on 1 January 2092. Moreover, the 72-dpi version is released under one of non-free CC licenses, so it may be acceptable to use as long as NFCC is met. George Ho (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2018 (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:Walterwomersley.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notations and identified as being from Bassano Ltd.-not unknown. We hope (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can support re-license of this as non-free as we have no PD photo of the deceased person. We hope (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See listing below. We hope (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. NPG bought this image in 1974. Assuming the first UK availability to be the time of purchase, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2045, and the US copyright would last until 1 January 2070, longer than UK one. Moreover, the 72-dpi image is released under one of unfree CC licences, so the use may be appropriate. George Ho (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2018 (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:Kennethmartinlindsey.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notations and identified as being from Bassano Ltd.-not unknown. We hope (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can support re-license of this as non-free as we have no PD photo of this deceased person. We hope (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. NPG bought this image in 1974. Assuming the first UK availability to be the time of purchase, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2045, and the US copyright would last until 1 January 2070, longer than UK one. Moreover, the 72-dpi image is released under one of unfree CC licences, so the "fair use" may be appropriate. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2018 (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:Lordfeversham.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notations and identified as being from Bassano Ltd.-not unknown. We hope (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can support re-license of this as non-free as we have no PD photo of this deceased person. We hope (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the reply above re: the Alexander Bassano photo. We hope (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. NPG bought this image in 1974. Assuming the first UK availability to be the time of purchase, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2045, and the US copyright would last until 1 January 2070, longer than UK one. Moreover, the 72-dpi image is released under one of unfree CC licences, so the "fair use" may be appropriate. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2018 (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:Hughgaitskell.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo has copyright notice at NPG and was taken by Bassano LTD, as per the NPG page. Invalid license re: author unknown. We hope (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hugh Gaitskell 1958.jpg PD photo which this replaced. We hope (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. Regarding the UK copyright, the image was purchased by NPG in 1996. Assuming the year to be part of the first UK availability, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2067, while the US copyright would last until 1 January 2092. However, an existing prior publication would counter this, but we've not yet found one.
The 72-dpi image is released under one of unfree CC licenses, so the "fair use" would be appropriate. George Ho (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it were a government work, the photo would have been subject to Crown copyright#United Kingdom. However, Bassano Ltd was not part of the government, so I can't consider it a "Government portrait", which you said it is. Template:PD-UK-unknown also mentions USA copyright status. Even when you prove that the image was first publicly available in the UK in exactly 1947, the year of creation, Wikipedia is bound by the USA law instead of other jurisdictions (see WP:Copyrights and WP:Non-U.S. copyrights). Regardless of the UK copyright status of the image, the US law shall consider it non-free per URAA([1]). Therefore, it cannot be transferred to Commons, which requires a content to be free in both the USA and the source country. You can read more at c:Commons:URAA-restored copyrights.
    Speaking of the UK copyright status, that's not easy to prove as I could not find sources, including newspapers, proving that it (as an anonymous work) was first available in the UK in 1947, even when "Bassano Ltd" was credited as the initial owner of the photograph. (These pages can explain anonymity, duration, and presumption.) If you can prove that the anonymous work was first publicly available in exactly 1947, I can consider it "PD-UK-unknown". Otherwise, it should be considered non-free in also the UK since first availability (presumably 1974, the year of NPG purchase) rather than creation. George Ho (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I'm not sure why you labeled it as "PD-URAA" unless you assumed that it was published within 30 days after first publication, which is not yet proven. Did you know that c:COM:Precautionary principle also applies? George Ho (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - PD-URAA means it wasn't published within the US within 30 days actually, as this is what the licence says 'it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)', so what you just said was wrong. Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Template:PD-URAA also says that a non-US work must meet three required conditions to be PD in the US. One of them is to be in the PD in a source country on the URAA date. However, the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996, the URAA date for UK-released works. Therefore, US copyright was restored on that similar date. Even when the image was unavailable or publicly available on that date, the results would be the same for US copyright. Well, its UK copyright is difficult to agree about, especially when sources proving unavailability or availability are not yet found. Let's wait for other opinions then. George Ho (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Further comment - This link proves that it was available in 2012. George Ho (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Here is what it says on the wikipedia article "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)". Well we don't know who the creator was as they worked for a now defunct company, 'otherwise' we have to go off when this photo was created or published, so this photo was taken in 1947, which means that this is out of copyright since it is more than 70 years since this image was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyJoe87 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2018 (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:Rabbutler.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Portrait is listed with copyright notice at NPG-page clearly shows it was taken by Bassano LTD-author is not unknown. We hope (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rab Butler.png PD photo this replaced. We hope (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996.
Regarding UK copyright, the 1995 Regulations of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 revived/restored lapsed UK copyright of most works on or before that date. Before the Regulation, the UK copyright of this image must have lapsed more than 50 years after creation if the image were unavailable within that time frame. The UK copyright was restored then by that Regulation. Furthermore, the image was purchased by NPG in 1996. Assuming the year to indicate the first UK availability, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2067, while the restored US copyright would last until 1 January 2092.
Also, the 72-dpi image is released under a non-free CC license, so the image may comply with WP:NFCC#2. George Ho (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can say the same thing about this image as I did at #File:Hughgaitskell.jpg. Despite my best to convince you, I'm concerned about your labelling it as "PD-URAA". Have you considered using the c:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle yet? George Ho (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - PD-URAA means it wasn't published within the US within 30 days actually, as this is what the licence says 'it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)', so what you just said was wrong. Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Template:PD-URAA also says that a non-US work must meet three required conditions to be PD in the US. One of them is to be in the PD in a source country on the URAA date. However, the 1995 Regulation of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 revived the UK copyright of the image, which lapsed earlier then. Since the Regulation, the image was copyrighted in the UK as of 1 January 1996, the URAA date for UK-released works. Therefore, US copyright was restored on that similar date. Even when the image was unavailable or publicly available on that date, the results would be the same for US copyright of UK works, including ones whose UK copyrights were revived. Well, its UK copyright is disputed and difficult to agree about, especially when sources proving unavailability or availability are not yet found. Let's wait for other opinions then. George Ho (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Here is what it says on the wikipedia article "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)". Well we don't know who the creator was as they worked for a now defunct company, 'otherwise' we have to go off when this photo was created or published, so this photo was taken in 1937, which means that this is well out of copyright since it is more than 70 years since this image was created. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2018 (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:Christopher-Birdwood.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Portrait has copyright notice at NPG and is clearly marked that Bassano Ltd is the photographer; author is not unknown. We hope (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:1917.01.07 Le Miroir - Atasatul militar britanicla Bucuresti lt col Thompson.png PD photo this one replaced. We hope (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. If still unavailable on 1 January 1997, the UK copyright would have been lapsed, but the US copyright will have still remained. However, the photo was bought by NPG in 1974, making it presumably first available to the UK. Under that assumption, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2045, while the US copyright would last until 1 January 2070, longer than the UK one. Moreover, the 72-dpi image is released under a non-free CC license, so it may comply with WP:NFCC#2. George Ho (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can say the same thing about this image as I did at #File:Hughgaitskell.jpg. Despite my best to convince you, I'm concerned about your labelling it as "PD-URAA". Have you considered using the c:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle yet? George Ho (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - PD-URAA means it wasn't published within the US within 30 days actually, as this is what the licence says 'it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)', so what you just said was wrong. Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Template:PD-URAA also says that a non-US work must meet three required conditions to be PD in the US. One of them is to be in the PD in a source country on the URAA date. However, the 1995 Regulation of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 revived the UK copyright of the image, which lapsed earlier then. Since the Regulation, the image was copyrighted in the UK as of 1 January 1996, the URAA date for UK-released works. Therefore, US copyright was restored on that similar date. Even when the image was unavailable or publicly available on that date, the results would be the same for US copyright of UK works, including ones whose UK copyrights were revived. Somehow, duration of the UK copyright and of the US copyright are not easy to debate about without reliable sources, and we still disagree with the statuses. Let's wait for other opinions then. George Ho (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Here is what it says on the wikipedia article "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)". Well we don't know who the creator was as they worked for a now defunct company, 'otherwise' we have to go off when this photo was created or published, so this photo was taken in 1926, which means that this is well out of copyright since it is more than 70 years since this image was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyJoe87 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2018 (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:Malcolmmacdonald.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notice and is clearly labeled with Bassano Ltd. as the photographer-not unknown. We hope (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malcolm MacDonald cropped.jpg PD photo this one replaced. We hope (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. NPG bought this image in 1974. Assuming the first UK availability to be the time of purchase, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2045, and the US copyright would last until 1 January 2070, longer than UK one. Moreover, the 72-dpi image is released under one of unfree CC licences, so the "fair use" may be appropriate. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can say the same thing about this image as I did at #File:Hughgaitskell.jpg. Despite my best to convince you, I'm concerned about your labelling it as "PD-URAA". Are you assuming that it was published within 30 days in the US after first publication abroad? If not, why else? George Ho (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - PD-URAA means it wasn't published within the US within 30 days actually, as this is what the licence says 'it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)', so what you just said was wrong. Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Template:PD-URAA also says that a non-US work must meet three required conditions to be PD in the US. One of them is to be in the PD in a source country on the URAA date. However, the 1995 Regulation of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 revived the UK copyright of the image, which lapsed earlier then. Since the Regulation, the image was copyrighted in the UK as of 1 January 1996, the URAA date for UK-released works. Therefore, US copyright was restored on that similar date. Even when the image was unavailable or publicly available on that date, the results would be the same for US copyright of UK works, including ones whose UK copyrights were revived. Somehow, duration of the UK copyright and of the US copyright are not easy to debate about without reliable sources, and we still disagree with the statuses. Well, this was available in 2012, but you would argue that, because it was created in 1931, it wasn't available for 70 years after creation. Let's wait for other opinions then. George Ho (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Here is what it says on the wikipedia article "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)". Well we don't know who the creator was as they worked for a now defunct company, 'otherwise' we have to go off when this photo was created or published, so this photo was taken in 1931, which means that this is well out of copyright since it is more than 70 years since this image was created. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2018 (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:Richardstokes.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notice and the photographer is clearly states as Bassano Ltd-not unknown. We hope (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. NPG bought this image in 1974. Assuming the first UK availability to be the time of purchase, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2045, and the US copyright would last until 1 January 2070, longer than UK one. Moreover, the 72-dpi image is released under one of unfree CC licences, so the "fair use" may be appropriate. George Ho (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - To prove that it went public in 1947, there must be a source verifying it. Otherwise, I would consider it a mere possibility. BTW, the "PD-URAA" is inaccurate; the UK copyright was restored/revived by the 1995 Regulations of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The image was (re-)copyrighted again as of 1 January 1996 in the UK, so the URAA restored the US copyright of the image. I voted for the non-free tag based on the US law. However, the UK publication is disputed, so we shall wait for other opinions then. George Ho (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Here is what it says on the wikipedia article "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)". Well we don't know who the creator was as they worked for a now defunct company, 'otherwise' we have to go off when this photo was created or published, so this photo was taken in 1940, which means that this is out of copyright since it is more than 70 years since this image was created. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2018 (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:Arthurjones.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notice and identifies Bassano Ltd. as the photographer-not unknown. We hope (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would support a re-license of this as there's no photo of this deceased person. We hope (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer is unknown and was taken before 1948, meaning it can be released under the licence of PD-UK-unknown. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. Either way, the US copyright was restored by the URAA for foreign works that were published without copyright notice, copyright registration, and/or copyright renewal. This image qualifies for US copyright because the image was still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996. NPG bought this image in 2004. Using the time of creation, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2034. However, the first US publication is not yet verified and proven. Let's assume that the image became first available in 2004 at the time of purchase. Under that assumption, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2075, while the US copyright would last until 1 January 2090, presumably longer than the UK one. Moreover, the 72-dpi image is released under one of unfree CC licences, so the "fair use" may be appropriate. George Ho (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said at #File:Richardstokes.jpg, being publicly available in 1947 is a possibility but a mere one without a source verifying it. BTW, for reasons as the same as #File:Hughgaitskell.jpg, "PD-URAA" is inaccurate. On 1 January 1996, the image was copyrighted in the UK; therefore, the URAA restored the US copyright on that same date. The "non-free biog-pic" tag should be added based on the US law, to which Wikipedia bounds. George Ho (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Here is what it says on the wikipedia article "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)". Well we don't know who the creator was as they worked for a now defunct company, 'otherwise' we have to go off when this photo was created or published, so this photo was taken in 1947, which means that this is out of copyright since it is more than 70 years since this image was created. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2018 (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:Emanuelshinwell.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: Delete; deleted by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid license. Photo is at NPG with copyright notice. Photographer is listed as Bassano Ltd-not unknown. We hope (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photographer is unknown as Bassano Ltd is the company name, not the person who took it. Therefore the photo can be used under PD-UK-unknown as it was taken before 1948. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emanuel Shinwel HU 059765 (crop).jpg PD photo this one replaced. We hope (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer is unknown and was taken before 1948, meaning it can be released under the licence of PD-UK-unknown. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and Bassano Ltd ceased to exist in 1962 so there is no possible way for us to find out who the respective photographer for this photograph is or was and that is why it is allowed under the licence of PD-UK-unknown JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Bassano - self portrait.jpg The photo was taken in the 1890s and the person died in 1913. The license shows author's life + 100 years. It was uploaded in 2017. The file at Commons isn't complete, however. The file shows that a vaid US copyright tag is needed and that would be one for PD-pre 1923. It's not licensed as PD-unknown but author's life + 100 years. We hope (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what relevance this has? We know that Alexander Bassano took that photo himself, since its a self portrait, but we have no idea who took the photo of the person in question here, since the company ceased to exist in 1962 and we know it wasn't Bassano himself since he was already dead. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(If free in the US) transfer to Commons or (if unfree in the US) Either add/change to "non-free biog-pic" - Per UK law, works-for-hire created by anonymous photographers may be copyrighted since either the time of creation or the time of first availability within 70 years after creation. The image was purchased by NPG in 1996, one year after the copyright would have expired under the current UK law. (Before 1995 regulations of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which revived/restored lapsed UK copyrights of most works, the UK copyright would have expired 50 year after creation if unavailable within that time frame.)
Assuming that the image was unavailable within 70 years after creation in 1924, the UK copyright would have expired already. Moreover, because the image was published without formalities required by the US Copyright Act of 1909, the US copyright would not have been restored by the URAA. Therefore, assuming it to have been unavailable within 70 years after creation, the image would be safe to transfer to Commons.
However, the source doesn't reveal the full date of purchase. Furthermore, possibly, a prior publication may exist to prove otherwise to verify first availability within 70 years after creation. If the image were first available in 1994 before 1 January 1995, the lapsed copyright would have been revived on 1 January 1996 under newer 1995 Regulations. Therefore, under that possible assumption, the UK copyright would last until 1 January 2065, while the US copyright would last until 1 January 2090, longer than the UK one.
Assuming it as non-free, the 72-dpi image is released under one of non-free CC licenses. "Fair use" should be asserted if unfree. George Ho (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is under the licence of PD-UK-unknown because we don't know who the photographer was and it was made public prior to 1948, so the licence of "non-free biog-pic" would be inaccurate as it is out of UK copyright. The photo was made available as it is a Government portrait. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, the discussion would have been more convenient if it were a multi-nom, but I guess some discussions are different. Anyway, despite my best to convince you, you suddenly labelled the image as "PD-URAA". Besides an assumption that it was published in the US within 30 days after first publication abroad, is there another reason for such labelling? George Ho (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - PD-URAA means it wasn't published within the US within 30 days actually, as this is what the licence says 'it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)', so what you just said was wrong. Furthermore the licence I used on the images clearly states: A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948; or A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1948. So either way the image is covered as we know it was taken before 1948, and if you wish to use the argument of 'How do you know it was released in 1947', then lets go off your theory that it wasn't however it is still covered by 'A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1948', as it is up to the discretion of the NPG on whether or not they release images to the public. There are thousands of images stored on the NPG database that have yet to be released, so because of that I would say that this is the first time the image has been released to the public. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Template:PD-URAA also says that a non-US work must meet three required conditions to be PD in the US. One of them is to be in the PD in a source country on the URAA date. Presumably, the image would be still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996 under the assumption of delayed first availability, years after creation. This would result in restoring US copyright of the UK work. A source can verify that, but is it necessary? Another possibility: the image was unavailable for 70 years after creation, thereby resulting in the lapse of UK copyright and leaving US copyright un-restored. A reliable source proving an unavailability should counter that other possibility. Nevertheless, I can assume that you believe that a source is not need to verify unavailability. However, what if a source proving one early availability exists? It can verify that it was first available in one of prior years, countering the "unavailability" possibility. Nevertheless, I guess we'll agree to disagree on the sourcing, the first availability, and unavailability. We shall wait for other opinions then. George Ho (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Here is what it says on the wikipedia article "Essentially, the 1988 Act and amendment establishes that copyright in most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known, otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (50 years for computer-generated works)". Well we don't know who the creator was as they worked for a now defunct company, 'otherwise' we have to go off when this photo was created or published, so this photo was taken in 1924, which means that this is out of copyright since it is more than 70 years since this image was created. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2018 (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 Miguel Soundtrack.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: delete. Historical precedent is that we don't allow such an use of images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC as the image is very similar to that of File:Luis Miguel póster.jpg. WP:FILM, WP:ALBUMS, and WP:SONGS recommend to avoid repetitive images, WP:TV should do the same. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the series was released, only 5 songs had been published and that was the image that Spotify used. Now that I have visited the Spotify page again I see that they updated the list of songs and the image.--Philip J FryTalk 22:43, 26 May 2018 (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.