The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is copyrighted by WWE

http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/200806011 Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (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 image 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as copyright owned by the uploader, but also noted that this is the artist's self-portrait. One is incorrect unless they are the same person (which I don't believe) and I think it's the former. Peripitus (Talk) 03:10, 13 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have a WP:OTRS ticket to confirm permission... if conversation is accurate, Toshok still didn't explicitly release it into the public domain or under a free license. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:45, 13 June 2009 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lanternix (talk · contribs) uploaded this image for the intention to disrupt, so it would be no surprise that he wasn't being honest about the image being PD. There is no indication at the source web site that the image is PD Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assuming good faith (irony, in case you don't get it). Not new for Falastine fee Qalby (talk · contribs) to make random accusations against people who make edits he/she dislikes. In any case, the file has a promotional license. --Lanternix (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional? What product is this image promoting? More seriously, who is the copyright holder? – Quadell ^(talk) 03:51, 17 June 2009 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:30, 28 June 2009 (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 image 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: Reverted to non-free license label. Note the image is currently used in two articles but does not have a required non-free use rationale for either of them, and as far as I can see in the history it has never had any such rationales either. So I have added a ((subst:nrd)) tag to the image, if no rationale(s) are provided within 7 days it may end up deleted anyway (or removed from articles for wich there is no rationale). --Sherool (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until a few minutes ago, this was tagged as copyrighted; the image page still says the copyright is held by "Curtis Publishing Company" (although the link is dead). Is there any evidence that Rockwell actually released the copyright as User:Greg L claims, as opposed to the OWI simply getting permission to use a copyrighted work in its poster campaign? Anomie⚔ 20:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A valid FUR could probably be written for the existing article-space uses of the image; I suggest a verdict of "Tag as fair use" rather than "delete". Anomie⚔ 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did not say that Rockwell released his painting into the public domain. What I said the war-time poster was a production of the United States Office of War Information (OWI) and was printed by the United States Government Printing Office. The OWI sought—and received—permission from Norman Rockwell to use all four of his Four Freedoms paintings in the war effort. Thus, this image of the war-time poster (not the painting alone) is in the public domain. See here for history. Greg L (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poster may be public domain as a product of the US government, but that doesn't mean the painting used therein is not still copyrighted. Anomie⚔ 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Images of the painting alone are copyrighted. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe your understanding of copyright law is mistaken, and your reasoning that the image of the poster is public domain despite it containing a copyrighted painting as the major component of the poster is based on this error. But I'm not about to waste time trying to change your mind; I'll just leave it for others to decide. Anomie⚔ 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes no sense. If it were public domain, you could make derivative works of it freely, including cutting off the caption banners. If it's public domain, the image inside is too; if it's not, it's not. Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Comment The claim that anything printed by the government is free of copyright does not hold. The governmnet has printed catalogues for the Smithsonian -- that does not place the art works depicted into the public domain at all, thus that argument fails. The image is still sold by the NR museum - and is marked as copyright. He did lend the original paintings for a fundraising effort in the war - but kept ownership of them. (I think one was sold - but you get the idea). Berne convention does not say that using a "derivative work" is a valid means of evading copyright law in any case. Collect (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No one said “anything printed by the government is free of copyright”. What has been said is that images of the war-time posters are in the public domain. Greg L (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not make the image public domain -- per Berne convention. Collect (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to Non-free license. Looking at this file's history, it was originally uploaded on Dec. 19, 2004, as a patently erroneous ((PD-US)), then corrected on Dec. 26, 2005, to ((Non-free fair use in)). I disagree with today's change to ((PD-USGov)): use of copyrighted images by permission in government publications does not mean one can make derivatives or further publication of said images free of copyright restrictions. On the contrary, any further publication as a derivative work would be restricted by the original copyright, unless expressly released. To be used as a free image by wikimedia, we would need verification at OTRS that Norman Rockwell's permission to the Gov't for use of the image in the poster freely allows derivative and commercial use. Absent that, this file should revert to the non-free version of January 15, 2008.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is plenty of non-free content on Wikipedia (movie posters, TV screen shots, etc.) If it isn’t in public domain, then there are still fair-use uses, such as discussing the four freedoms. Greg L (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And "fair use" is strongly discouraged on WP. Collect (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until you changed it, it was "fair use" in two articles. I don't see any reason for that to change, and I've already posted on both articles' talk pages telling them that a FUR is needed. Anomie⚔ 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this painting is copyrighted by Norman Rockwell. Any new material created by the U.S. Government is not copyrighted, but the painting itself still is, and this image is a derivative work. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark non-free per Quadell. Even if the information on the image page was true, it's a derivative work where the painting is not pub domain and thus the license is invalidated. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (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 image 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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on uploaders comments, more discussion is probably needed before any deletion... I don't know the details of the pre-1978 thing in regard to yearbooks. Any help would be great. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no copyright notice in the yearbook (as the uploader suggests), this would indeed be in the public domain per ((PD-pre1978)). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I still don't know all the details on copyrights. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (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 image 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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas on what the copyright would be for a scan of this? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should probably fall under the Czech Republic exclusion from copyright for official government works. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The currency page on Commons should probably be updated once this is verified since the Czech koruna is not listed there. Tothwolf (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (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 image 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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2009 (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.