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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sahiba Pakistani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a promotional photo and not the uploader's work. Uploader has a history of image copyright violations. Corvus cornix_talk 06:27, 6 December 2010 (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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hina shaheen.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Suspect image, solely because of the uploader's history of copy violations Corvus cornix_talk 06:31, 6 December 2010 (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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saima Pakistani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Concern because of uploader's history of copyvios. Corvus cornix_talk 06:34, 6 December 2010 (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. Since it is apparent that no one exactly knows the country where it was first published, it would seem most prudent to err on the side of caution and delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The zeta fusion device.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no evidence that this image was taken by the UK government or that it was taken before 6/1/57. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't find any more evidence, we should probably delete this image and replace it with this one from Popular Science, which can at least be sourced reliably to its original publication. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was taken for the UK Government, and published before January 1, 1960, it would now be in the clear, regardless of whether or not it was taken before 1 June 1957. The uploader asserts that it was indeed taken for the UKAEA and so covered by crown copyright; and released for publication in 1957, so before 1960. Jheald (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the "Second International Atoms for Peace conference" mentioned by the uploader was held in Geneva, from 1 to 13 September 1958. The uploader says the picture would have been released "prior" to that conference, but not how much prior. Jheald (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • (edit conflict) Hmm it looks like our crown copyright template may not be correct, in that it reflects only copyright in the UK and not in the US. Since the US does not apply the rule of the shorter term, the work would have to have been in the public domain in the UK as of 1/1/96 for it to be in the public domain here. (See Wikipedia:Public domain.) So that would be photos taken or published before 1/1/46 (based on this). So obviously neither of those things could apply to this image.... Taking a totally different approach, it appears that Popular Science (the source of the image I linked above) never renewed any of their copyright registrations[1], so the image I linked to above should be PD. (I'm not sure how this rule applies if they are republishing someone else's copyrighted image with permission, and neglect to renew the copyright... which may be the case here.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, never mind about that first bit - apparently the expiration of crown copyright applies worldwide? (see discussion here.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) Indeed. The email we have, based on a formal UK Freedom of Information response from OPSI, says that when UK Crown Copyright expires, they consider it Public Domain worldwide. If the copyright owner waives their copyright, that is sufficient to make an image PD. Jheald (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to verify the copyright status of the Popular Science image by finding evidence that it is a UKAEA image, which makes sense. For now, I have put the Popular Science image in the article. It may make sense to delete this image, considering we have a replacement with verified copyright status. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But this one is the better image. It would be good to verify its copyright status if we can. It does seem highly plausible that it was made available before January 1960. Jheald (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the important question is where it was first published. Was it published in the UK or the US first (or, in the US within thirty days)? If the answer is the latter, then we'd need to search the copyright archives for this image or crown copyrights; if it's the former, then we need to rely on ((PD-UK)). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2010 (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.