Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 2

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Dwyer at Camp Blanding.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• • Delete: Uploader originally added the "All Rights Reserved" and © to the image with an author but later added a PD copyright tag with the claim he is the creator but left the restrictions when it was semi-speedied for lack of a licence tag and did not change the author. ww2censor (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, that is an amazing sentence you just constructed!-GrapedApe (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right. Sorry, I was tired before going to sleep but you got the drift. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. License is totally garbled. We have no idea what is actually happening with the license.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A "public domain" image with "all rights reserved" is strange. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• *Delete: copyright tag is blatantly false because the subject was only born in 1923! Keep if a better licence can be verified. ww2censor (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, the man is from Australia, not from the United States. A USA copyright tag is not useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A USA copyright would still be useful because the English WP site is hosted in the US. That aside, there is no evidence that the original author agrees with the current license. Add to that the inferior quality of the scan. Delete. De728631 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This looks like it was derived from http://www.aptnsw.org.au/christie/5.html Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The images are different, note the style of the multi-line stops. RonChristieplan.jpg uses straight boxes while in the other images they are somewhat indented. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chi omega founders.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Insufficient information to determine PD-US-100: we would need evidence of the the author and the author's birth date. Further, even if the original photos are in fact PD, they are part of a website collage that is certainly not PD GrapedApe (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As per this site, these photos are of four students and one professor who were all at the University of Arkansas in 1895. Take that for what it's worth. DS (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but the image is a collage of those (possibly) PD images. We would need a free license for the collage.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Dubious PD-self claim is dubious. This is an official fraternity coat of arms, so if the uploder is indeed the author, then we would need some confirmation of his authority to release the frat's coat of arms into PD. GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Founders1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Bogus PD-self claim is bogus. Did the uploder really take this extremely old photo. I would be open to PD-old or PD-1923 claims, if we could determine age or the identity of the actual photographer. GrapedApe (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A good way to find out more about the image is to read how the uploader described it in the article for which it was uploaded. For instance, this image has a caption stating "Delta Chapter, Spring 1928". DS (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point, but I would still be uncomfortable with a keep based on an unsourced date from the wiki page, rather than based on an outside reference--GrapedApe (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's sourced to the uploader. AGF? DS (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sigma phi delta flag.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• PD-self license is not correct. This is an official fraternity flag design/logo, so the original uploader is not the author. Plus, there's no evidence of any release by the fraternity. Also, PD-text would not apply b/c of the castle dude in the middle GrapedApe (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SPD logotype.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• PD-author license is not correct. This is an official fraternity logotype, so the original uploader is not the author. Plus, there's no evidence of any release by the fraternity. Also, PD-text would not apply b/c of the castle glyph in the middle. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:SPD logotype.svg GrapedApe (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:100px-SVG-logo.svg.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Old revision of File:SVG-logo.svg, converted to PNG. File:SVG-logo.svg is listed as unfree, but might qualify as PD-textlogo. I've noticed that a lot of PD-textlogos are listed as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I even forgot a bout this file. When I placed it, it was part of an experimental page, and I said I would delete it forgetting that I can't do that on Wikipedia, because I am a Bureaucrat on three other wiki sites... so please feel free to do what I was unable to when I posted it. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 17:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Disney Mix Stick.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's not a logo, it's a pictures of a technical device with specific design and also a derivative works skin from Cars movie. GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Such images can be replaced by free versions. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It's not a logo, it's a concept image for a not built hotel dated back from 1970s. GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The rationale is correct and I have changed the license to {{non-free image}}. While it's still unfree we may now keep it under that licensing and rationale. De728631 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It's not a logo, it's a concept image for a not built hotel dated back from 1970s. GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The rationale is correct and I have changed the license to {{non-free image}}. While it's still unfree we may now keep it under that licensing and rationale. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It's not a logo, it's a concept image for a not built hotel dated back from 1970s. GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The rationale is correct and I have changed the license to {{non-free image}}. While it's still unfree we may now keep it under that licensing and rationale. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• concept map of a non build theme park. GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a logo but a graphical work by an unknown author. The map software may be copyrighted too. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walt E. Disney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Portrait picture, not a logo. GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This has been extracted from a photo by Reuters. See the file name of an image used by the Daily Telegraph: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01588/disney-reuters_1588165c.jpg De728631 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palomino statue at Laredo Community College Foirt McIntosh Park IMG 1796.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - no FOP in the US. Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question When was the statue placed there ("published")? If it was "published" before 1 March 1989 without a copyright sign, it would typically be in the public domain and eligible for photos. Have you ever seen a statue with a copyright sign? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently that's not unusual. See Photographer Defends Infringement Lawsuit for Photo of Sculpture and Finding a Spot on Paintings and Sculptures for Copyright Notice. Since we cannot rule out that there is a copyright tag on that statue or that it was registered at the Copyright Office we can't have this image. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscar M. Laurel bust IMG 1764.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - no FOP in the US. Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oscar M. Laurel was born in 1920 so this must have been created a few decades past 1923. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freer, TX, welcome sign IMG 0965.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - no FOP in the US. Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, modern copyrighted artwork. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural in Wharton, TX IMG 1059.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Mural / painting - no FOP in the US. Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural in Oberlin, LA IMG 1078.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Mural / painting - no FOP in the US. Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, modern copyrighted artwork. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marjorie Lyons photo IMG 1377.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Painting - look to new to be PD-old for sure. Could be but I think we need more info. MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything online about this painting. But the name of the painter would probably help with that question. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the spring of 1917, Maurice Fromkes painted a portrait of Marjorie Hall displayed at the Marjorie Lyons Playhouse", and the photo is of that particular portrait. Fromkes died in 1931. DS (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue on Red River Parkway IMG 1553.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - no FOP in the US (think it is the US). Look to new to be PD-old for sure. MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, looks too modern to be in the public domain. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Shed Road mural IMG 1549.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Nural / painting - no FOP in the US (think it is there). Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See the artist's signature "Buddy West(?) 95". Was apparently painted in 1995 and is therefore copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ${\displaystyle 1995>1989}$, so it is copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veterans Memorial in El Campo, TX IMG 1024.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - no FOP in the US. Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, see also Commons:FOP#United_States. De728631 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confederate Momument, Victoria, TX IMG 1006.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - no FOP in the US. Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are several sites claiming that this was erected in 1912, hence it is PD ([1], [2], [3]).

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddy Holly statue in Lubbock, TX IMG 0085.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - no FOP in the US. Look to new to be PD-old. MGA73 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Buddy Holly wasn't even born in 1923, copyrighted artwork. De728631 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog search indicates this was installed ca 1979, so likely still copyright, unless someone can show it was dedicated per-1978 in which case {{PD-US-no notice}} would apply. ww2censor (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patriotic mural in Homer, LA IMG 0859.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Picture / poster - only FOP in the US for buildings. MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, copyrighted artwork. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Horse and rider statue in Logansport, LA IMG 0941.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue (or similar) - only FOP in the US for buildings. MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks too new to be PD-1923. De728631 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gil Y'Barbo statue in Nacogdoches, TX IMG 0969.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - only FOP in the US for buildings. Could be PD due to age but no info about who made it or when. MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a fairly recent statue from around 1999/2000 [4]. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Confederate soldier, Wilbarger County Courthouse, Vernon, TX Picture 2204.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - only FOP in the US for buildings. Could be PD due to age but no info about who made it or when. MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, erected in 1916 [5]. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilbarger County, TX, Veterans' Memorial Picture 2205.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - only FOP in the US for buildings. Could be PD due to age but no info about who made it but it seems it was in 1926. MGA73 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is after 1923, wouldn't it come under "fair use"? I don't have the date of the statue. 72.178.222.89 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although unveiled in 1926 in Vernon, this is part of whole series copyrighted in 1920 [6]. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Even if it was "published" after 1923, it may still be in the public domain. Anything without a copyright statement from before 1978 is fine. Anything from before 1963 with a copyright sign is fine if the copyright wasn't renewed. Anything without a copyright sign first published between 1978 and 28 February 1989 is fine if no copyright was registered within 5 years. See File:Printz.JPG for a public domain 1988 sign. Do statues ever have copyright statements? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently copyright marks on statues are not unusual. See Photographer Defends Infringement Lawsuit for Photo of Sculpture and Finding a Spot on Paintings and Sculptures for Copyright Notice. De728631 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:George M. Cohan statue in Times Square IMG 1607.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - only FOP in the US for buildings. Could be PD due to age but no info about who made it or when. MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1960s artwork [7]. De728631 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per {{PD-US-no notice}}. No copyright statement (unless if it's on the back side which isn't visible on any of the photos). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unless if it's on the back side which isn't visible on any of the photos": and therefore we can't keep it. Do you know for sure that there is no copyright tag on the backside or on the front side close to the ground? De728631 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, I know that for certain, from my own visual inspection of the statue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: According to a Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog search there is no copyright notice on the statue and it was made in 1958 but actually installed according to [ this] in 1959, so {{PD-US-no notice}} does apply. Full sculpture details should be added to the image page to avoid it being questioned again. ww2censor (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in that case we can keep it. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bust of Clyde Fant IMG 1590.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - only FOP in the US for buildings. Could be PD due to age but no info about who made it or when. MGA73 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, 1970s artwork [8]. De728631 (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per {{PD-US-no notice}} unless it was made in 1978 or 1979 in which case it is probably Keep per {{PD-US-1989}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know for sure that there is no copyright tag on the backside? And according to that website the statue was unveiled in 1975. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smithsonian's catalogue states that a "signed Founder's mark appears" in the inscription [9]. That looks a lot like a registered artwork. De728631 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't see any copyright sign on the black & white photos on the Smithsonian web site. On the other hand, I might not have noticed it because of the low quality of the photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Presley in Shreveport IMG 1341.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Statue - only FOP in the US for buildings. MGA73 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't have been published before 1923 and the other cases of PD-US are also very unlikely to apply. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete. There seems to be a copyright notice on the last line of text, but it's hard to read on the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dedicated October 14, 2004, so it's clearly copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Boxer.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence uploader is the author; photograph of a photograph, by the looks of it due to the reflection of the flash. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming good faith we should note the description "HMS Boxer F 92 taken Fremantle Harbour 1992 Lilly" and the uploader being a User:Lilly28. The "photograph of a photograph" assessment would also be backed up by the fact that the camera model was introduced in 2004 while the image of the ship is dated 1992. However this looks like an attempt to get a digital copy from an old personal photo and I see no reason to assume a breach of copyright. Keep.
  • While I do try to assume good faith in editing, for the media side of the Wiki I strongly believe in the rule of caution, due to the greater potential for copyright violations. There's simply no evidence available that the photograph is theirs. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see where you're coming from but wouldn't that mean that we need hard evidence for each and any media that get uploaded on WP or Commons? {{own work}} can be inserted by anyone (and I guess we both know that it's frequently done by the usual suspects on Commons). So, what kind of evidence would you need from Lilly28 to be on the safe side? Maybe an OTRS ticket with an assurance that this was not taken from anybody else's photo album would work. That way any possible claims would fall back on her, not on WMF. De728631 (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's clearly a flash in the middle of the photograph and another light source in the top right, near the top of the ship's mast(?).--GrapedApe (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I agree that this was photographed off another photo. But that original photo may as well have been taken by the uploader. What I'm saying is that they may have tried to make a digitised copy of their own paper photo and didn't have a scanner. Poor choice, poor quality but still one and the same photographer. De728631 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you have any reason to believe that? Or is that mere speculation?-GrapedApe (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not any more reason than you to believe that the original photo was taken by somebody else than the uploader. They did however write on the file page "i was on it [the ship] then" which makes it plausible that they were the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - that is clearly (to me, at least) a photo of a larger photo. Possibly at a museum.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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