Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 July 16

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) 17:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not particularly relevant; PD-old is claimed, so we need to decide whether it qualifies as such. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A discussion about this image took place at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/July#File:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png as a result of the Manchester United F.C. featured article nomination. The logo was deemed to be similar enough to the pre-1958 Manchester coat of arms that it should retain the same copyright status. The rest of the image consists predominantly of text and geometric shapes, meaning that it does not pass the threshold of originality for copyright to be applied. I'd say it's a free image. – PeeJay 09:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young woman with Peackock.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "No source and no evidence that the copyright holder has actually released this image." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why didn't just you tag this for speedy deletion? —howcheng {chat} 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I wanted a 2nd opinion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 12:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob Hope Jo Stafford James Darren Jo Stafford Show.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is tagged - "The program was done and first aired in the UK; there is a possiblility of UK copyright." , However this is clearly a publicity still. Opinions needed given that images of this kind have been kept before. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Your statement looks a lot like a "keep" vote. Did you mean to write all this for this image? Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was veering towards marking it for commons. Ideally PUF should really be 'Image Status review' like commons DR's are. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was issued by CBS-TV to promote the show. Photo searches, including tineye, have found no other examples of the photo. I felt I wasn't being honest by not mentioning that the program had aired in both the US and the UK. Based on the conversation here, I've removed the do not copy information from the file. We hope (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 14:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:LordGeorge-Brown2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There's no specific indication that PD-UKGov does in fact apply. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The source indicates that this photo was taken as part of the National Photographic Record, a project Walter Stoneman undertook for the NPG. From the available information this does not appear to have been directly commissioned or funded by the UK government so Crown copyright would not have applied. January (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis , you might want to review some other images I recently evaluted (in good faith) as OK for Commons based on them having a PD-BritishGov tag, (also NPG sourced.). Not sure how they could be found though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found the other related files File:Johnchurcher.jpg, File:Peterstrickland.jpg.File:Generalweclutterbuck.jpg,File:Guybainbridge.jpg. These might have a similar issue. Care to check if they have the same issue, givan the apparent authors?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed File:Peterstrickland.jpg to {{PD-UK-unknown}}, based on previous outcomes at Commons this tag is OK for a photograph credited to a studio but not a named photographer (see for example c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-03#File:Joseph Sullivan MP.jpg). The others are also part of Stoneman's National Photographic Record, File:Guybainbridge.jpg is a pre-1923 image but the others are similar to this one, although I would wait for the outcome of the current discussions before nominating any more. January (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I would say convert to fair-use if possible, rather than Delete. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection in principle to fair use claim if it is concluded that these images are unfree, but it would need someone to investigate whether there is a free image available first to ensure WP:NFCC#1 compliance. January (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:EastmanRaiders.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a sports uniform design,( but the actual logo is rather small).Opinions needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Deleted at Commons as potential copyvio. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - these images have been discussed dozens of times, here at en.wiki and at Commons. They constitute seized Nazi assets and as such are considered PD in the United States. Hence why they are here on en.wiki and not on Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. We probably need a special tag or something for these war booty pictures to prevent people from wasting their time on these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a template on File:Scharnhorst guns.jpg that we could use - it's just the {{PD-because}} template with the specific reason. I don't see why we couldn't just slap it on all of the ex-German NHHC photos. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't something similar to the wording used in {{PD-HHOFFMANN}} be appropriate? Assuming someone prepared to find the official position on material that was 'sezied'.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's irrelevant - the crew of a routine photo-reconnaissance mission would not have been credited with creating the photo, and it's been 73 years since it was created. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a 1937 poster of German origin, so it's not PD-US, It might however be a 'seized' item, Is there a template for PD-US-APC (Alien Property Custodian Office?) , which explains the situation? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The Library of Congress notes "no known restrictions on publication in the US" http://loc.gov/pictures/item/2009631995/ Also see: http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html#noknown. If it is decided that this should be deleted, please also delete the restored version: File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske2.jpg. Also, please notify Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Thanks! Jujutacular (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Claimed as PD-UKGov, but I seem to recall the Government art Collection, being under different terms. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/KeepEither way or another, the author died more than 70 years ago, so it is free.--The Theosophist (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is considered a work of the UK and the path of 70 years pma is chosen, then 1941+70+1=2012>1996, not free in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfred Robbens2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed as PD-Gov, but the source doesn't confirm this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could still keep it as fair use, though.--The Theosophist (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:OakCAMayorLJWilson.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This looks like a screenshot. PD-CAGov likely not correct. Deadstar (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The state may well produce videos, and it's likely that they hand out images to put on TV; neither one would be copyrightable by someone else. However, with no real source, we can't even assume that it's either of these; the image could have been tagged as {{nsd}}. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baroness Emma Orczy by Bassano.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Something 's wrong here, a 1920 image can't be taken by an author that died 7 years previously. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and/or upload to Commons. Simple mistake by the uploader in the author field. It's Bassano Ltd, not Alexander Bassano the person. Photographers with Bassano Ltd are typically not credited by name. Commons would take such photos with, for example, {{PD-Art-two|PD-UK-unknown|PD-1923}} or some other suitable combination. Something similar probably exists on Wikipedia to tag this file. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • (ec) Source says "Bassano Ltd" (i.e. Bassano's company). I believe that, without any individual credit, we should apply the 70 years post publication date for anonymous works (the question now being: when was this first published?). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the uploader, and I have no memory of uploading this image; probably I decided to assist someone else with it, since this kind of thing is very far from what I normally edit, and I almost always upload to Commons. That's pretty much all I can think of saying, at least at this point. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air France travel poster, ca. 1940.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This has a wrong license, Whilst it mmay well PD-No-Notice, this is likely to be a work of French Origin(?) and thus subject to URAA? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure why Trialsanderrors thought this was PD-US. —howcheng {chat} 16:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is quite likely PDUS if it was used in the US (advertising posters rarely ever got properly copyrighted in the 1940s, and copyright certainly didn't get renewed). Good enough for Flickr, not enough for Wikipedia, where we look for item-specific evidence. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:AUGUST OSAGE COUNTY SEPT 2010 SMALL.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Uploader is not creator of image. File:CAESAR_POSTER_10_small.jpg suggests uploader could be related to theatre company depicted [1]. OTRS is needed (please also see user's talkpage). Deadstar (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Likely an official "service photo" but there's no indciation of that on the media description page. Willing to assume good faith. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The source indicates that this photo was taken as part of the National Photographic Record, a project Walter Stoneman undertook for the NPG. From the available information this does not appear to have been directly commissioned or funded by the UK government so Crown copyright would not have applied. January (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agreed that it is likely an official "service photo". I have amended the media description page accordingly. There is little doubt in my mind that the National Photographic Record was an exercise undertaken with official backing (fees were shared with the National Portrait Gallery). Dormskirk (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1911 Copyright Act defined Crown copyright works as "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any government department". The NPG is a non-departmental public body so it does not meet this definition. The subjects were selected and invited to be photographed by Stoneman or the NPG so the photo was not commissioned by the Royal Navy either. January (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zavoisky.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as PD-old-70, but there's no author listed, subject of image is deceased and so fair use could be reasonably applied. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  or better {{PD-Russia}} - this is a university ID photo, thus the chances to identify the author are negligible. Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Handel, Lascia ch’io pianga autograph score, 1711.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Clearly old, but another contributor noted that this might be considered unpublished work in the UK. What's the situation in the US? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep local. Handel's been dead for over 250 years. Unpublished works with a known author are only protected in the US for 70 years after the death of author; see Commons:Hirtle Chart. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crisco 1492. But why does it have to remain local? This is not an unpublished work. It's an aria from Handel's opera Rinaldo. The complete score of the opera was published in Germany in 1894 [1] and New York in 1900 [2]. This aria on its own was published in London in 1876 [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tirpitz altafjord.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as PD-USonly, but the image is of German(?) wartime origin. "Sezied" item? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - these images have been discussed dozens of times, here at en.wiki and at Commons. They constitute seized Nazi assets and as such are considered PD in the United States. Hence why they are here on en.wiki and not on Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vendetta hvy.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a belt design, and as such can't be licensed as self. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matthew-russell-1890.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed as PD-old-100, but there is no author/date listed for confirmatory purposes. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Source is "Irish Monthly, 1912", so even if we can't clarify status in the source country it would be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. January (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:65151912 3mjE6-L-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "IMHO, untrusted user, see commons:User talk:Артём Алтухов = +/- 40 copyvios. --Gunnex (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:W. Houston & G. Bush at White house.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as "This is quite likely to be a press photo and highly unlikely to be a federal government work. Its copyright status is uncertain and therefore it is ineligible for Commons." by another contributor. (This despite being sourced to the Office for Public Affairs.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched usa.gov for such an image, and I failed to find it; with a claim of being taken from the website, and no link (nothing we could attempt to follow with archive.org, for example), it has no verifiable source. On top of that, pretty much every image I saw was a press photo, so it's not likely to be a PD-USGov image if it's there and I missed it. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I understand two photographers were present. Barry Thumma of the Associated Press; whose images capture the subject's right profile,[4][5] and a White House photographer; capturing the subject's left profile – without choreographing a pose as well. Notice this image, credited as an "Official White House Photo [from the] Estate of Whitney Houston". Or both of these, credited as "courtesy [of the] George Bush Presidential Library". Also notice the images in this issue of Jet. They have a "watermark" on the images stating the material is copyrighted. However, they also include the same image shown in the previous source and there is no watermark on it.

  I acknowledge losing the web link where I originally found this image, though I recall that it was not credited to Barry Thumma. I think it is incredible that I can not find this image again; no matter how, or where I search – It clearly does exist. I feel if it can not be shown as a copyrighted image within some other publication, we should retain it as a PD image, noting that we currently seem to be the sole web-host for this particular image. I am fairly certain that the original image is in the George Bush Presidential Library, and that it is only available through a freedom of information request. If it is deleted because an active link has not been provided, I suppose one of the other images, afore shown, could be uploaded as a replacement, but again, I feel it is a shame to relinquish an image, hosted by Wikipedia alone. As far as I can tell, if the file is deleted, it will no longer be viewable on the web at all. Hence, I have copied it to my personal files, to mitigate the likelihood of deletion. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This site attributes it to AP. It's also on many websites without attribution. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmund Oscar von Lippmann.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is an uncertainty noted about whether this image was restored under URAA. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  And? Materialscientist (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 02:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umair Asif Image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused,"Used only for self-promotional vanity pages about a non-notable person, and of no value to anyone else." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Withdrawn - Wrong process - Meant to FFD (Also see below...)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 02:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umair Asif Picture123.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused - "Used only for self-promotional vanity pages about a non-notable person, and of no value to anyone else." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Venue - Mean to FFD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 17:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umair asif writer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused- "Used only for self-promotional vanity pages about a non-notable person, and of no value to anyone else." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Venue - Meant to FFD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sourcemaglogo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "This logo is incorrectly licensed, it is a copyrighted image that should have a non-free use rationale" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fibber McGee Molly cast photo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a publicity still ( and likley a no-notice as claimed), but was tagged by another contibutor as follows "While the image is clearly a promotional one made especially for public distribution, it carries no express NBC markings. While it clearly does meet the public domain pre-1978 requirements, it may not meet the restrictions of Commons due to lack of NBC identification." OK to remove that tag? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  front copy of photo

  back copy of photo

This was a fan mail reply for the radio show circa 1939, by the cast and characters shown in it. The back is blank, as can be seen. I can upload copies of the front & back shown for proof of no copyright marks, add a better copy of the cast photo we have in the article and propose changing the tag to keep local. We hope (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed this tag to keep local. We hope (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Profootballhalloffame USFL areas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Was deleted on Commons for being potentially unfree", This is a museum display, and any obvious copyright photos appear to have been delibrately blurred. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This was previously kept per Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 October 22#File:Profootballhalloffame USFL areas.jpg. The version deleted at Commons was the original without the blurring. January (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:BONZZO's Big Comic Strips Expo at Plaza Las Americas Mall..jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Photographs of Copyrighted works" so the self license might not be appropriate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On the description page, the uploader writes that he is John Rivas and he is the sole creator of the image and owns the copyright, but contradictory statements by the uploader on other pages raise serious doubts about that. The situation being what it is, this file would require a verifiable OTRS from John Rivas, stating that he is the copyright owner of the photograph and validating the licenses, or stating a suitable general permission for uploads performed through this account. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Rivas with BONZZO's 1999 Pictorial Cancelation.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Photographs of Copyrighted works", however their inclusion here might be de-minmis. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too many uncertainties. On the description page, the uploader writes that he is John Rivas and he is the sole creator of the image and owns the copyright, but contradictory statements by the uploader on other pages raise serious doubts about that. Also, the way Rivas appears on the photo, it is not immediately obvious that he is creating a selfie. This file would require a verifiable OTRS from John Rivas, confirming that he took this photograph, or another reason for his ownership of its copyright, and validating the licenses. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:BONZZO's Big Comic Strips Expo at Plaza Las Americas Mall2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Another contributor claimed "Photographs of Copyrighted works" but this is clearly a photo of their setting within a gallery, and the actual copyrighted work are less than a fifth or so of the totla image. Can we apply De Minimis here?. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might perhaps have been argued in another context. However, the fact of naming the file "BONZZO's Big Comic Strips Expo at Plaza Las Americas Mall2.jpg" and the fact of using the file to illustrate the article "BONZZO (comic strip)" pretty much rule out the possibility of seriously claiming that the photo does not really show BONZZO works. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As Sfan00 said (a photo of their setting within a gallery), it is in fact a photo of BONZZO's Big Comic Strips Expo at Plaza Las Americas Mall, an exposition on the mall's walls. This image was taken by John Rivas, who is the creator of BONZZO and the Copyrighted work (big comic strips) shown on the image, I think this detail was not seen. I uploaded this image for him, into Wikipedia. Also the specific details of the artworks can not be seen so it shouldn't be classified as "Photographs of Copyrighted works". GenovevaT (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are speaking of John Rivas in the third person, which seems to imply that you are not him, which is in contradiction with your claim to be John Rivas in the source field of the description page and of being the owner of the copyright. That said, if the real John Rivas took the photo and if he wants to publish it under the stated licenses, and if he's fine with the fact that the freely licensed photo shows some of his BONZZO works, then that would be great. If you know him, it should be possible for you to ask him to send the confirmation through one of the normal procedures such as a mail to OTRS from a verifiable address. The same applies to the other files where you claimed to be John Rivas. If you are not him, you should of course withdraw your claims of being him. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication has been given yet that the concerns raised in this discussion have been addressed or that they will be addressed. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vadmgano.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "File is not self made, license invalid. Deadstar (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signature of Ari Lasso.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag - Indonesia is not mentioned" - This however IS a simple signature, and I can't see why this shouldn't be on commons. Opnions needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Itō Shinsui, The fragrance of a bath, 1930.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is tagged as PD-USnonotice, but is clearly NOT a US image, the image being from Japan. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to the Library of Congress, "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication in the U.S. Use elsewhere may be restricted by other countries' laws." —howcheng {chat} 16:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Library of Congress employs copyright professionals to make these determinations; we have no good reason to tell them that they're wrong. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Invalid public domain claim. Eeekster (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted. PUF is for ambiguous situations; this is blatant. Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "The file was deleted through this c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:AlRass.jpg discussion." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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⚡ 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schreck donajuana.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "still copyrighted until at least 2043 - Czinner died in 1972" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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