Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 15
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Temerev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Author is listed as Sergei Temerev, who is still alive. There is no fair use rational and the uploader has used a PD-author tag. ALH (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to fairuse as an artist, a sample of his art would be needed to show his skills. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not that can be done depends on the result of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Temerev. ALH (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Non-free. Thanks for doing the work to create good rationales for the two uses that can be justified. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Duchamp LargeGlass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- It says that this was made in 1915-23. If it was finished in 1923, then there is no chance that it was published before 1923. In that case, it is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. Stefan2 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it should have the -Non-free 2D art- tag on it. I uploaded it long, long ago. I've added rationale for usage in two articles to the image's talk page, since the main page says not to change it while this non-free policing action is underway. --sparkitTALK 03:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's plainly non-free, and a (very) major work of art and the subject of right and proper discussion in the articles. We should at once add the existing Non-Free Usage Rationales to the file description page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two fair use rationales were posted on the file talk page. If the conclusion is that this is non-free, those can be moved to the main page. The image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#9 in most articles in which it is used and can only be kept in the article about the painting and maybe also in the article about the artist. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it feels as if those are the only two where the image is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore the FURs on the talk page to the main page -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Duchamp is an important 20th century artist and the image is of a major work that should be moved to non-free if that is the determination; it needs to be included in various articles...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen this file uploaded and deleted before - original version of this image, with the copyright information here: http://mostly10.com/post/30336849151/mfluder42-misha-collins-misha-cruise-spn Mosmof (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Seal-3.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Threshold of originality concern, Source is not the uploader listed so not sure this can be a a self, claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Gurkha LAPV.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Questionable licensing. Unconfirmed user claims to be acting on behalf of the company. User was asked for license info back in December 2011 and still hasn't produced it.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Image is dated 1970, which is after the cut-off dates in the license claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Igo4iticon.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo, unclear if uploader is devleoper of product it's a logo for. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Kyocera-Strobe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Phone design. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - this sounds good enough to me. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tweed Run London 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unclear whether "Feel free to use the image at will" only allows verbatim reproduction of the image or if it also allows derivative works. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The statement indicates an open and generous attitude to any usage and explictly uses the word free. As all we're doing is displaying the image in a related article in a thumbnail, I'm not seeing the problem. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Warden (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The statement seems to allow any usage of the image whatsoever, and beats the godawful legal statement people need to submit via ORTS to formally release images. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rohr-Wappen.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not a photo as claimed. de:Datei:Rohr-Wappen.png might be a recent drawing of the coat of arms in which case it is protected by copyright. Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the uploader removed the photo licence, but it still says that this particular representation of the coat of arms was published before 1923, although there is no evidence of this. If non-free, it obviously violates WP:NFCC#1 since someone can make a replacement image based on the same blazon. See for example Commons:Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Sweden for examples of where this has been done for all coats of arms of Swedish municipalities. Besides, since the design is old, there should be lots of old drawings of the coat of arms which can be used instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - per Nick-D, in this case, the State Library of Victoria owns the copyright, and has the legal authority to declare no rights reserved, and has done so. If the copyright did not belong to the state library, the declaration would be invalid. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:No.90WingRAAF.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ho-hum, source declares that "No copyright restrictions apply". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No restrictions apply in Australia. The source is an Australian website, so it only cares about the copyright status in Australia. On the other hand, Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, and USA uses different copyright terms for Australian photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever, I can just as as easily change to fair use, since it appears no other images of this wing's headquarters are available, free or otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No restrictions apply in Australia. The source is an Australian website, so it only cares about the copyright status in Australia. On the other hand, Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, and USA uses different copyright terms for Australian photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ho-hum, source declares that "No copyright restrictions apply". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights states realisation before 1955, but it also says restoration of copyright was in 1996. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Australian copyright law said that photos entered the public domain 50 years after they were taken. When the law was changed, all photos taken before 1955 had already entered the public domain and remain in the public domain for that reason. Photos not yet in the public domain in 1996 (that is, photos taken after 1945) are protected by copyright in the United States thanks to URAA. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case the table needs to, at the very least, be updated. I actually agree with this nomination, and was going to vote delete had Ian not suggested using the image as non-free. Now, if the Aussies would make a declaration about the public domain nature of some works like the UK crown copyright does... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The table describes whether something is in the public domain in Australia. The template also tells that the uploader has to check whether the photo is in the public domain in the United States using the criteria in {{Non-free in US}} which is automatically transcluded by {{PD-Australia}}. That template is maybe a bit unclear, though, and might suggest that an Australian work which entered the public domain in Australia before 1996 automatically is in the public domain in the United States, which isn't always true (it must, amongst other things, be a published work). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so where do we go from here? Incidentally, Stefan, I'm not sure why you should assume that an unqualified "no copyright restrictions apply" should exclude the rest of the world. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In answer to Crisco, I've spoken to the AG and the what's happened is that the responsibility has been devolved to the agencies. So we have to track the photos down on a per-agency basis. Australians cannot legally place anything in the public domain, but they can put them under a CC licence. And it is government policy to do so with government photographs. Unfortunately, there is more than one type of CC licence. Note that 1955 is the magic year only for non-government photographs; it's still only 50 years for government photographs, so the magic year is now 1962 for them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can put something in the public domain in the United States. However, this would normally only affect the copyright status in the United States and not the copyright status outside the United States. The problem is that the limit is 1946 for Australian photos in the United States, and that is very annoying, as these photos clearly are in the public domain in the European Union, Canada, Japan, Russia and lots of other countries (at least all of those for which it says "yes" in the second column in the table in the article Rule of the shorter term), but not in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stefan, I can see from your comment immediately above that you're sympathetic and are just trying to do what you feel is in WP's best interests, but I think ColonelWarden put it beautifully in his 'keep' comment under File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg. In this case we have a governmental assertion of no copyright restrictions applying, plus a note that the image was a gift from the Argus newspaper. I've completed the article that uses this image so I want to determine a course of action as soon as practicable -- I've said above that I'll use a FUR if I have to but, really, to pick on Warden's point, where is the risk here as things stand? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that File:An014908Dowling&Son1952.jpg, from the same government library and with the same declarations of no restrictions and being a gift from the Argus, was subject to review at FAC in 2012, and no issue was raised. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get this resolved one way or the other (keep as is or FUR for the US)? No-one's commented except me for almost a week. I still say Keep as is for the reasons I've outlined, but I've now got the article in question as a DYK nom, and will soon be nominating for GA, so let's pls agree a course of action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that File:An014908Dowling&Son1952.jpg, from the same government library and with the same declarations of no restrictions and being a gift from the Argus, was subject to review at FAC in 2012, and no issue was raised. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stefan, I can see from your comment immediately above that you're sympathetic and are just trying to do what you feel is in WP's best interests, but I think ColonelWarden put it beautifully in his 'keep' comment under File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg. In this case we have a governmental assertion of no copyright restrictions applying, plus a note that the image was a gift from the Argus newspaper. I've completed the article that uses this image so I want to determine a course of action as soon as practicable -- I've said above that I'll use a FUR if I have to but, really, to pick on Warden's point, where is the risk here as things stand? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can put something in the public domain in the United States. However, this would normally only affect the copyright status in the United States and not the copyright status outside the United States. The problem is that the limit is 1946 for Australian photos in the United States, and that is very annoying, as these photos clearly are in the public domain in the European Union, Canada, Japan, Russia and lots of other countries (at least all of those for which it says "yes" in the second column in the table in the article Rule of the shorter term), but not in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In answer to Crisco, I've spoken to the AG and the what's happened is that the responsibility has been devolved to the agencies. So we have to track the photos down on a per-agency basis. Australians cannot legally place anything in the public domain, but they can put them under a CC licence. And it is government policy to do so with government photographs. Unfortunately, there is more than one type of CC licence. Note that 1955 is the magic year only for non-government photographs; it's still only 50 years for government photographs, so the magic year is now 1962 for them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so where do we go from here? Incidentally, Stefan, I'm not sure why you should assume that an unqualified "no copyright restrictions apply" should exclude the rest of the world. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The table describes whether something is in the public domain in Australia. The template also tells that the uploader has to check whether the photo is in the public domain in the United States using the criteria in {{Non-free in US}} which is automatically transcluded by {{PD-Australia}}. That template is maybe a bit unclear, though, and might suggest that an Australian work which entered the public domain in Australia before 1996 automatically is in the public domain in the United States, which isn't always true (it must, amongst other things, be a published work). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case the table needs to, at the very least, be updated. I actually agree with this nomination, and was going to vote delete had Ian not suggested using the image as non-free. Now, if the Aussies would make a declaration about the public domain nature of some works like the UK crown copyright does... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Australian copyright law said that photos entered the public domain 50 years after they were taken. When the law was changed, all photos taken before 1955 had already entered the public domain and remain in the public domain for that reason. Photos not yet in the public domain in 1996 (that is, photos taken after 1945) are protected by copyright in the United States thanks to URAA. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep PD in the country of origin, which is also where all copies of it are certain to be kept. Marked as "No copyright restrictions apply" by its owner, the State Library of Victoria (The Argus newspaper which created this image is defunct and appears to have donated its photo library to the State Library), so there's no reason to think that copyright would ever be claimed on any use of this image. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - the image appears to be an official portrait (and one from no later than the 1950s, given the subject's age and the general appearance). Official portraits were almost always published in some fashion. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ottogrimlund.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- It says that this is in the public domain in Sweden because it was taken before 1969, but it doesn't say when it was taken. The man died in 1969, so if taken during the last year of his life, then it is still protected by copyright in Sweden.
The image looks a bit like a scan of a photo and not like a scan of a book. Unless published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice, the image isn't in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Photo of the uploader's father, but the photographer is unknown, and the public domain statement is unsourced. If protected by copyright, permission needs to be given by the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - per the similar nomination above. The licensing page explicitly states that the item was donated. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:128862VampireT.35.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same rationale for keeping applies here as for File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as mentioned by Ian. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Marked as being CC-PD by the source. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Usual waste of everyone's time by the image police like most of the other nominations of Australian content here. Listed as PD by the copyright holder so why on earth would they attempt to assert copyright in the US? Deleting such images only serves to make Wikipedia more amateurish this it already is. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your evidence that the war memorial is the copyright holder? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep De minimis non curat lex. Spy007au (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - see above. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:128863VampireT.33.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same rationale for keeping applies here as for File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as mentioned by Ian. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Marked as being CC-PD by the source. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Listed as PD by the copyright holder. No valid reason to assume they would attempt to assert copyright in the US. Anotherclown (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your evidence that the war memorial is the copyright holder? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep De minimis non curat lex. Spy007au (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:280hp-walker-railcar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - per Nick-D's last comment, showing the AWM probably owns the copyright. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:3RAR-1950-P01813.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Marked as being in the public domain by its owner (the Australian War Memorial) at the source provided for the image. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Australian War Memorial claims that the copyright has expired, not that the image has been released to the public domain. Copyright expiration occurs after a certain period of time, and that period of time has only passed in Australia and not in the United States. Also, it says that the photo was donated to the Australian War Memorial by the photographer, Ian Robertson, implying that Ian Robertson is the copyright holder. If it were a government work, the Australian War Memorial wouldn't have had to depend on donations. --Stefan2 (talk)
- It's clearly marked by the AWM as CC public domain. The AWM does actually 'own' this image (many Australian veterans donate all their papers and photos to the Memorial, which has a very long running program of seeking permanent donations to add to its huge collection), and regards it as being in the public domain. I participated in some discussions with a staff member at the AWM which formed a small part of the process which lead to the AWM adding CC PD tags to the PD items of its collection a few months ago, and they don't consider these items to be in copyright anywhere in the world. There is zero likelihood of any copyright issues arising here, and hence no reason to delete the image. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that although the Australian War Memorial owns a copy of the image, there is no evidence that the war memorial is the copyright holder. "Copyright expired" is not the same thing as "donated to the public domain". Unless it can be shown that the photo has been donated to the public domain in the United States (or published under a free licence), the image can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clearly marked by the AWM as CC public domain. The AWM does actually 'own' this image (many Australian veterans donate all their papers and photos to the Memorial, which has a very long running program of seeking permanent donations to add to its huge collection), and regards it as being in the public domain. I participated in some discussions with a staff member at the AWM which formed a small part of the process which lead to the AWM adding CC PD tags to the PD items of its collection a few months ago, and they don't consider these items to be in copyright anywhere in the world. There is zero likelihood of any copyright issues arising here, and hence no reason to delete the image. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Australian War Memorial claims that the copyright has expired, not that the image has been released to the public domain. Copyright expiration occurs after a certain period of time, and that period of time has only passed in Australia and not in the United States. Also, it says that the photo was donated to the Australian War Memorial by the photographer, Ian Robertson, implying that Ian Robertson is the copyright holder. If it were a government work, the Australian War Memorial wouldn't have had to depend on donations. --Stefan2 (talk)
- Keep: this is fantastically silly copyright paranoia. The AWM owns the rights to the image; it was donated to them in the same way that many photos and their copyrights have been donated to the Library of Congress and the Naval History and Heritage Command. File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg is in the public domain in the United States for (roughly) the same reason. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The AWM owns a copy of the image. Owning a copy of an image isn't the same thing as owning the intellectual property rights to the image. We have no information about who owns the intellectual property rights to the image in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence is there that the AWM doesn't 'own' this image or that it's a copy? The AWM has been running a program to collect the papers, diaries, photographs and personal items of service personnel since about 1918 (I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Memorial, but one of its core functions since it was established has been to serve as a major repository of official and 'unofficial' records of Australian military history for future use by historians and it now has a vast collection of material donated to it, of which this image is a tiny part), this is included in its collection database which is maintained by professional curators, and the record in the collection database a) explicitly says that it was donated to the AWM and b) has been marked with a CC-PD tag by the Memorial's staff. There really isn't an issue here. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've donated to the Australian war Memorial myself. I can attest to the transfer of copyright. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence is there that the AWM doesn't 'own' this image or that it's a copy? The AWM has been running a program to collect the papers, diaries, photographs and personal items of service personnel since about 1918 (I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Memorial, but one of its core functions since it was established has been to serve as a major repository of official and 'unofficial' records of Australian military history for future use by historians and it now has a vast collection of material donated to it, of which this image is a tiny part), this is included in its collection database which is maintained by professional curators, and the record in the collection database a) explicitly says that it was donated to the AWM and b) has been marked with a CC-PD tag by the Memorial's staff. There really isn't an issue here. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The AWM owns a copy of the image. Owning a copy of an image isn't the same thing as owning the intellectual property rights to the image. We have no information about who owns the intellectual property rights to the image in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The AWM does own the intellectual property rights to the image, and has released it under the stated license. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence, please. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep de minimis non curat lex. Warden (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Challenging the lawful copyright holder is just showing WP:BADFAITH. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Listed as PD by the copyright holder. No valid reason to assume they would attempt to assert copyright in the US. Anotherclown (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your evidence that the war memorial is the copyright holder? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stefan, you keep asking people to prove a negative and have been unable to substantiate your view that the AWM somehow doesn't 'own' this item. The AWM is in fact the 'copyright holder' for the reasons Hawkeye and I have explained above, and they've marked the image as CC PD. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing you have shown is that the photographer has donated a copy of the photo to the Australian War Memorial. No one has been able to present any information about what happened with the intellectual property rights to the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was transferred to the AWM when it was donated, per the procedure Hawkeye notes. See the Memorial's donation policy for an example of how this works - note that this explicitly states that the Memorial seeks the copyright to all items donated to it. I believe that this has been the institution's long-standing policy. The AWM marks the relatively small number of photographs in its collection database which it doesn't own the copyright to with explicit tags attributing ownership (see, for example, [1]). Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing you have shown is that the photographer has donated a copy of the photo to the Australian War Memorial. No one has been able to present any information about what happened with the intellectual property rights to the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stefan, you keep asking people to prove a negative and have been unable to substantiate your view that the AWM somehow doesn't 'own' this item. The AWM is in fact the 'copyright holder' for the reasons Hawkeye and I have explained above, and they've marked the image as CC PD. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your evidence that the war memorial is the copyright holder? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep De minimis non curat lex. Spy007au (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Acknowledged. Clearly out of copyright in Australia owing to age, this is from an album made by the RAAF in 1953-54 and presented to my father at that time, so unlike images from the Australian War Memorial or Australian government libraries, the pictures are not marked as PD or "no copyright restrictions reply". Also I never ended up using it in an article, so a FUR could not apply. Have at it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: non-free Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly out of copyright in Australia owing to age, this is from an album made by the RAAF in 1953-54 and presented to my father at that time, so unlike images from the Australian War Memorial or Australian government libraries, the pictures are not marked as PD or "no copyright restrictions reply". It is however an image for which I've seen no PD equivalent, namely Lincoln bombers flying over their home base of Amberley, Queensland, and is used to illustrate a WP article. So I'd expect a FUR should apply in this case to deal with the US copyright issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:A. Carrigan.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - this appears to have received internal publication 50+ years ago, and thus falls under {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. Per discussion above, it appears that the Australian government does not pursue the copyrights which have expired at home. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AllanWalters1954a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly out of copyright in Australia owing to age, this is from an album made by the RAAF in 1953-54 and presented to my father at that time, so unlike images from the Australian War Memorial or Australian government libraries, the picture is not marked as PD or "no copyright restrictions reply". It is however an image for which I've seen no PD equivalent, namely a post-war portrait of Walters as a senior commander, and is used to illustrate the subject's WP article. So I'd expect a FUR should apply in this case to deal with the US copyright issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2013
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AllenAylett.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep as per #File:No.90WingRAAF.jpg above the State Library of Victoria owns the copyright, and has the legal authority to declare no rights reserved, and has done so. If the copyright did not belong to the state library, the declaration would be invalid. Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale for keeping this is the same as I've articulated under 90 Wing above -- government asserts no copyright restrictions apply and the image was a gift from the Argus newspaper. Incidentally, the source link in the WP file was out of date, I've fixed it now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I might add that this image was subject to review in the relevant article's FAC in 2012, and no issue was raised. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale for keeping this is the same as I've articulated under 90 Wing above -- government asserts no copyright restrictions apply and the image was a gift from the Argus newspaper. Incidentally, the source link in the WP file was out of date, I've fixed it now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Anatolkagan1954.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Argosy Lemal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Probably taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See: http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?dscnt=1&fromLogin=true&docId=SLV_VOYAGER1650135&vid=MAIN&fromLogin=true This Australian picture is out of copyright as per the page details. Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an Australian website, so it only indicates the copyright status in Australia. No one is questioning that it is out of copyright in Australia. The problem is that it isn't in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the file source, the picture was taken "ca. 1940". That's before 1945, not after. Spy007au (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. It says that it was taken around 1950 on Wikipedia. If it was taken around 1940, then the requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States is that it was published somewhere without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989 or, if already published before 1964, that the copyright wasn't renewed. Is this a published or an unpublished photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea - all I can go on is what the source details state - that is, the picture was taken ca. 1940 by a well-known Australian photographer and it is free of any copyright in Australia. If that's not good enough, then remove it, keeping in mind there are 1000s of pictures on Wikipedia using this particular Australian copyright status. Spy007au (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. It says that it was taken around 1950 on Wikipedia. If it was taken around 1940, then the requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States is that it was published somewhere without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989 or, if already published before 1964, that the copyright wasn't renewed. Is this a published or an unpublished photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the file source, the picture was taken "ca. 1940". That's before 1945, not after. Spy007au (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an Australian website, so it only indicates the copyright status in Australia. No one is questioning that it is out of copyright in Australia. The problem is that it isn't in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The image record says that it was actually donated to the SLV by its creator around 1940, which seems fairly similar to publishing it given that this made the image available for general use (via whatever arrangements for commercial re-use of images in the SLV collection were in place at the time). Given the image's age and the fact that it is also clearly marked as out of copyright by its 'owner' there seems to be no reason to delete. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that should count as publication. There is no evidence that the State Library of Victoria ever has been the copyright holder, but that isn't important if it is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per evidence provided by Nick-D. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per evidence provided by Nick-D. Spy007au (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidence at State Library of Victoria, including "glass negative" and gift notice with date is conclusive for this fairly rare photo of an historic ship, one of the original "SWPA CP fleet" vessels of some note in command communications history. And by the way, "no evidence that the State Library of Victoria ever has been the copyright holder"? State and national libraries and museums are pretty anal about rights to "gifts" and proper notice. This constant claiming places like our Library of Congress and AWM and such are just "sloppy" about such are a bit tiresome. They are generally much more knowledgeable and conscientious, with experts in residence or on call, in such matters than "Wikipedians"!Palmeira (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Argus - 1947July7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Post-1945 newspaper, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ArthurMorris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Late 1940s might mean after 1945 in which case the photo is protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Askin 1965.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test.
Taken after 1954, so protected by copyright in Australia. Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNo it isn't - if this is from the National Archives of Australia as stated in its record, it's out of copyright on the grounds of being a Commonwealth or state government created and held image made prior to 1969. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- That's not correct. Commonwealth or state government photos made prior to 1969 are protected by copyright for 50 years since creation in Australia, and this was made less than 50 years ago. The link doesn't work for me, so I can't tell what it says at the source. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right: I can't subtract it would seem. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not correct. Commonwealth or state government photos made prior to 1969 are protected by copyright for 50 years since creation in Australia, and this was made less than 50 years ago. The link doesn't work for me, so I can't tell what it says at the source. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AusCricketTeam1950.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:AusTeam51-52.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Taken after 1945, so protected by copyright in the United States per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Autoten-logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Icon is 'Danger mouse' which is a copyright character. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly an album cover. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The description suggests that this either was made by Robert Crumb or that it is a derivative work of something made by him. Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep under corrected {{PD-self}} licensing. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TechFilmer Background.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Invalid PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure how to source it, I made that image myself for my website, and a whole bunch of other places, how exactly should I source it? TechFilmer (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Studentfromjapan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- User:Victorianarsyawondergirl2 has uploaded a number of non-free files taken from the internet but claimed to be own work; although I have been unable to find the source for this particular picture, there is little reason to believe that this image was not also taken from a random internet site, especially given the low resolution of the image and the fact that the uploader notes that it was previously published on tumblr. BabelStone (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Derivative work of 2D artwork Ronhjones (Talk) 20:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the image of postal stamp and envelope taken by me. I don't think the use of picture of postal stamp is non-free.
- Delete Derivative work of non-free envelope and stamp. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BISAD MURAL.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Derivative work - the 2D artwork is the majority of the image Ronhjones (Talk) 20:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Centenary Stamp of BPA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Derivative work of 2D images Ronhjones (Talk) 20:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the image of postal stamp and envelope taken by me. I don't think the use of picture of postal stamp is non-free.
- Delete Derivative work of non-free envelope and stamp. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep as there is no apparent copyright notice. If we hear back otherwise from Yale, this can be reopened. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Modern 3D sculpture located in US - no Freedom of panorama for sculptures in US Ronhjones (Talk) 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It says that it was published without a copyright notice before 1978. In that case, it is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- reread Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. "no FoP US" is not an excuse for disruptive nominations. SIRIS is used as a reference for the existence or absence of notice. ultimately, the artist's agent will issue a DMCA if they think it is a violation; then, i will counterclaim and go to court. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 21:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This image started life as non-free, and has been going back and forth between free and non-free - the only way to correctly settle this dispute is to have a full discussion here as to it's allowance as a free image. We do not wait for legal claims to appear before deletion. As Lexein noted in one edit summary I think Slowking4 is utterly wrong, since the artists have DMCA's nearly every other image of their works - therefore we must resolve the problem - ignoring it won't make it go away, and leaving it as a nice free image will almost certainly get it moved to commons. Ronhjones (Talk) 13:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjones (talk • contribs) [reply]
- I haven't seen any proof that it was published without a copyright notice. That's why I was reverting to the smaller size, as fairly obvious NFC, under NFCC. --Lexein (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SIRIS does not say either way about it's copyright status (It's number 07260172 in the catalogue). It says the owner is "Administered by Yale University" - I could always ask them via Wikipedia OTRS to see if they can confirm the copyright status - if editors want me to. Ronhjones (Talk) 13:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SIRIS usually mentions inscriptions on the sculpture. In this case, no inscription is mentioned, presumably meaning that there is no inscription. Unless there was an inscription there back in the 1960s and 1970s containing a copyright notice, the sculpture is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably need dated photos from the installation period to verify whether there ever was an inscription. --Lexein (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we don't have that for any statue. Are you suggesting that we should delete every photo of post-1963 US statues, unless there has been a court ruling that it is in the public domain (like s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago)? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No , not a court case (snort) but we need to reliably source whether or not a copyright exists, IMHO. I'm just a little bit sick of this wishy-washy nobody-knows-for-sure crap. Aren't you? --Lexein (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there is usually no other way to tell whether there once was a sign with a copyright notice which was destroyed in the 1980s or 1990s. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've e-mailed "Museums, Libraries & International Programs" officer at "The Office of Public Affairs & Communications" at Yale University on OTRS ticket 2013042010007941 - Let's see if they reply. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh... All I got back from Yale, after a reminder, was "Please contact Oldenburg's studio to confirm whether or not the artwork is protected under copyright." All I could find for him was a fax number - I've used an e-mail to fax service to try to get an answer. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking. I hope you have a free efax account or some such to receive their (eventual) reply. --Lexein (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Their web site says - send by fax and we will e-mail back - useful - not replied yet, though. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking. I hope you have a free efax account or some such to receive their (eventual) reply. --Lexein (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh... All I got back from Yale, after a reminder, was "Please contact Oldenburg's studio to confirm whether or not the artwork is protected under copyright." All I could find for him was a fax number - I've used an e-mail to fax service to try to get an answer. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've e-mailed "Museums, Libraries & International Programs" officer at "The Office of Public Affairs & Communications" at Yale University on OTRS ticket 2013042010007941 - Let's see if they reply. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there is usually no other way to tell whether there once was a sign with a copyright notice which was destroyed in the 1980s or 1990s. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we don't have that for any statue. Are you suggesting that we should delete every photo of post-1963 US statues, unless there has been a court ruling that it is in the public domain (like s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago)? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably need dated photos from the installation period to verify whether there ever was an inscription. --Lexein (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SIRIS usually mentions inscriptions on the sculpture. In this case, no inscription is mentioned, presumably meaning that there is no inscription. Unless there was an inscription there back in the 1960s and 1970s containing a copyright notice, the sculpture is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SIRIS does not say either way about it's copyright status (It's number 07260172 in the catalogue). It says the owner is "Administered by Yale University" - I could always ask them via Wikipedia OTRS to see if they can confirm the copyright status - if editors want me to. Ronhjones (Talk) 13:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like a card deisgn from a game. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:TFMCover13.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is clearly a magazine cover. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep Since it's an unpublished work with author unknown, copyright lasts 120 years from creation. And thus expired 3 years ago. Danger High voltage! 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nicholas-porter-earp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- There is no source (except for a non-working URL), so the claim that this was published before 1923 is unverifiable. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is not dead (http://www.americanghosttowns.us/Nicholas%20Earo.htm). Jack1956 (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It works now, apparently. That page doesn't contain any information about the publication history of the image, so it is impossible to tell whether it was published anywhere before it was posted to that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a crop of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nick_and_virginia_earp_1890.jpg Jack1956 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that File:Nick and virginia earp 1890.jpg was published either. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a crop of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nick_and_virginia_earp_1890.jpg Jack1956 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It works now, apparently. That page doesn't contain any information about the publication history of the image, so it is impossible to tell whether it was published anywhere before it was posted to that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is not dead (http://www.americanghosttowns.us/Nicholas%20Earo.htm). Jack1956 (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ayub Park Rawalpindi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader has listed the source as "Google" and has listed themself as the author. ALH (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The claim that this is a self-created image appears to be false. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.