Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 6

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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Members of C9 League.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• These are a collection of organisational logos. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 百度百科 has never held any copyright to these logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:New republiq.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Organizational logo, and not necessarily uploaders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 6 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cm hydroxide.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Seaborg lived till 1999, so does this image qualify as of scientific value as opposed to be being purely technical? Fair use regardless. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If Seaborg created this in 1947, then he likely published it somewhere else before it appeared in the indicated Swedish publication. It is therefore questionable whether the source country is Sweden in the first place. As Seaborg was a US citizen living in the United States, this photo was not subject to any URAA restoration. For works by US citizens living in the United States at the date of first publication, you should use the terms in the section "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." at Commons:COM:HIRTLE, regardless of where the work was published. I realise that this is a special case which isn't mentioned anywhere on the Commons page, as no section addresses works first published outside the United States by US citizens living in the United States. In either case, the copyright status in Sweden is irrelevant to Wikipedia, but it is unclear whether it is relevant to Commons.

The exact meaning of "scientific value" in the Swedish law is not fully clear. All I can find is this:

It would be necessary to look at some older document for a better reference. There don't seem to be any court rulings on this. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 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: Kept.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There is insufficient information to make a determination of status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read last year's PUF discussion? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link please... because I probably didn't, If the decisiont then was for retatin than I have to go by consesus Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous PUF discussion is mentioned on the talk page, and you can also find a link to it by looking at historic versions of the file information page which have a {{puf}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Per previous long disscussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:12, 8 December 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: Delete; deleted as F5 by Secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suki waterhouse cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• May violate WP:NFCC#1, as a photograph of the subject could be created. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 13:18, 6 December 2013 (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⚡ 14:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged {{subst:rfu}}. WP:NFCC violations shouldn't be on PUF in the first place. Use WP:FFD or WP:NFCR instead in the cases where a speedy tag doesn't apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 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: Withdrawn. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sevasti Qiriazi, (1871-1949) portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No photographer detail, or indeed a country of origin to determine if first publication was US or not. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there anything on the linked website? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the site appears to be in Albanian, but doesn't given any further hints.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the website that is linked to the photo has published the pic but there is no license info on it. I may say this is the only photo of the person, and all sources do not mention any licensing info. I assume it is a free source, since newspapers and magazines, including government instances like Korca Municipality website has the same picture displayed. The person in the photo was born in 1871, the picture dates definitely before 1923. Regards. Mondiad (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn- PD-US-1923-abroad Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 11 December 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: Withdrawn. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of Kristo Dako (1876–1941) in 1919.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No author, further information needed to confirm this as No author. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a link to a page in something which looks like Albanian. Is there any information on that page? I can't read that language. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the link is the source from where the image is uploaded. It is a newspaper, so it does not use non-free material. The source itself states no license, and the same photo is found all around in internet in different sources including newspapers and magazines. The person in the photo was a participant in the Peace Conference 1919-1920. That is where the photo comes from. Regards. Mondiad (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parisian pierrot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Abbe was still alive in 1973. If this is a US image then it's free (PD-1923) , but if a UK image it's not. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• All photos published before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States regardless of where they come from. The problem is that we do not have any evidence that it was published before 1974. If it was first published in 1974, then the copyright expires in 2070 in the United States (95 years after publication). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 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. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SylviaCecil1919.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The listed publication is 1963, However it's listed as 1919 publicity photo, Who took the photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a 1919 publicity photo by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and was reprinted in the later publication, from which it was scanned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Was it published in 1919? If it wasn't published until 1963, then there may be a problem with the US copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a publicity photo that was sent to the press and, at the very least, used in theatre programmes in 1919. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it should be a simple keep. This file and several of the other files should never have been listed here in my opinion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 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: Kept. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enzo Martinelli.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This looks like a staged portrait, so I'm not sure it qualifies under the 20 year rule for simple Italy images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that we have assumed that they do elsewhere, but I'm not fully certain. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Route map showing Australian sections of the Far East Flight with inset showing England-Singapore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 25 year is for typogrpahical arrangments, not magazines as such.

Whose the author? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Author is not known. It's from a magazine published in 1929 so if 25 years isn't applicable then it would instead be 70 years and copyright expired in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simoncwikip (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Copyrighted in the United States for 95 years since publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was published in the UK, so surely UK copyright applies? That's 70 years since publication Simoncwikip (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US, copyright expires 95 years after publication. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE. Wikipedia is hosted in the US, so US law is what applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leonidas Plaza.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Whose the author? Without further confirmation the image can't definitly be shown not to have a revived claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominated for deletion on Commons. For Wikipedia, we need to find out when it was first published. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ives-adams-rvw-britten.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Brittern image source seemingly deleted, so status can't be confirmed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the uploader I'm happy for this to be deleted. I was never happy about the status of the Britten [sic] image, and if memory serves I set the process of its deletion going. I have learnt the hard way that it is prudent to avoid Commons images later than circa 1900 whenever possible owing to the frequent unreliability of their attribution. Tim riley (talk) 19:31, 6 December 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: Delete; deleted as F6 by Secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cameron Ocasio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:38, 6 December 2013 (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⚡ 21:11, 6 December 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 F7 by January (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Max Schneider.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:40, 6 December 2013 (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⚡ 21:11, 6 December 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: Kept. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fifty-caricatures-1913.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Max Beerbohm died in 1953 so I can't see why this is PD-UK Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Image published in 1913 therefore OK to be used as published before 1923 in the US. I Have removed the PD-UK tag Jack1956 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PD-US-1923-abroad. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional -

• Fifty-caricatures-balfour-1913.jpg
• Fifty-caricatures-caruso-1913.jpg
• Fifty-caricatures-chesterfield-1913.jpg
• Fifty-caricatures-shaw-1913.jpg
• Fifty-caricatures-title-1913.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:38, 6 December 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: Kept. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert-taber-rotary.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Attributed photogrpaher died in 1958 , How is this PD-UK? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's also {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, which is sufficient by itself for Wikipedia. Whether it's also PD in the UK only becomes an issue if someone tries to move this to Commons. Since Commons have previously deleted another of Lizzie Caswall Smith's postcards per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Camille Clifford.jpg (it's marked for undeletion in 2029 based on her death date) I would suggest we just remove {{PD-UK}} and mark this as eligible for Commons in 2029. January (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:21, 9 December 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.