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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dodgeville Skyline.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source website lists full copyright. Uploader has long history of not understanding copyright. Royalbroil 04:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fabulance BlueBalls.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Comic strip, doubt ((PD-self)) claim, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dodgeville Exit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source is simply given as 'flickr', the uploader making the assertion that is under a free license (in this case cc-by). However, with no source link we can't verify this. Note the author is given as flickr as well. Acather96 (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G6 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:250px-Ridgewaywi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No real source provided, given as 'upload.wikimedia.org', and the author as 'wikimedia.org'. Asserted to be under a free license, in this case cc-by, however we can't verify this with no source link. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging for speedy deletion duplicate of File:Ridgewaywi.jpg, which is PD. —innotata 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faith Hunter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader says they have permission, however this needs to be verified through OTRS. Acather96 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just emailed Faith Hunter and asked her to verify with OTRS whether or not she gave the permission. LadyofShalott 11:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battery Plan.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved' Acather96 (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this and all GFDL images by User:Shoka. Yes, his wording is confusing. A user asked him about it here, and he clarified here that he permanently released all these photos under the GFDL, while still holding the copyright. I have revised the wording, and these photos should be transferred to Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Left hand ditch 3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved'. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Left hand ditch 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved'. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Left hand ditch1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved'. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Left hand caponnier.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved'. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forward ditch and the inside of the battery.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved' Acather96 (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forward ditch and caponnier.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved' Acather96 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forward ditch 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved' Acather96 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forward ditch1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as self-gdl however the description says 'All Rights Reserved' Acather96 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as above. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock and Roll Rowdies.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as GFDL-self, however it is stated twice that 'All Rights are Reserved' to Crosstrax Music Services. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crosstrax Music Services is not orphaned. Check online at www.ccli.com The song Rock and Roll Rowdies was penned by me and is registered in Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosstrax (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sweet Jeanie.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged self-GFDL, however the description says all rights are reserved. Orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crosstrax Music Services is not orphaned (check online at www.ccli.com). This song is registered in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosstrax (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank Newman Speller.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No information at source related to who created the image (so no way to confirm that the author died 70+ years ago), no information on when the image was first published, no way to tell if a copyright notice was originally included with the image. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Source given is "The Hindu" and "Government of AP"... incomplete sourcing information which makes it practically impossible to verify the image's origin. States that it is a "Promotional photo. No copyright stated". Not having a copyright statement does not automatically make the image copyright-free.
  Regardless, I doubt the GFDL licensing. This is going to either be PD or non-free, and I'm inclined to think it is the latter. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luigi Puccianti.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source is a deadlink. No way to know who the author is, so we can't verify that s/he died 70 or more year ago. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NNSS (5 Polarbahnen).png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Can't find the source image in the original user's contributions, so we have no way to verify the license. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Uploader writes, "Photographer unknown," and then tags it as being self-created. —Bkell (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tim Penny.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Sourced to Tim Penny's page at the University of Minnesota, no evidence this is a congressional photograph. —innotata 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roger Moe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of permission: images from the Minnesota government were assumed to be public domain, but they are not; some images were released into the public domain by people at the legislature, but no evidence this was. —innotata 16:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NZ artillery 25 pounder Korea 1951 (AWM HOBJ2238).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• this image seems to be PD in australia, but not in the US. needed to have been PD in australia before 1996, but only became PD in 2001 as far as i can tell. might be able to be kept with fair use rationale on one or more pages Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly listed by the Australian War Memorial as "Copyright expired - public domain" [1]. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The archives (located in Australia) are presumably only commenting on the images' copyright status in Australia. The United States does not follow the rule of the shorter term, meaning that images taken elsewhere (and public domain elsewhere) are not necessarily in the public domain in the United States. That is why there is a warning on the ((PD-Australia)) tag. The image also must satisfy the requirements of ((PD-URAA)) to be in the public domain in the United States. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Image is marked as being PD by the Australian War Memorial, which owns the image (which was created by an Australian military photographer). Is there any evidence at all that the photo is under copyright in the US? - given that it's a work of the Australian Government, it's hugely unlikely to have ever been licensed in the US so there are no copyright issues.
• Keep: clearly listed as PD at its source. If you dispute this, can you please provide very clear evidence that states that this particular image is subject to US copyright? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's related to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: per the article, "the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied." That is, if any work is published in Australia, but the author wants to claim copyright in the United States, US copyright law applies. The exception to this, however, is if the work passed into the public domain in its home country before 1996, when the US passed the URAA. That's the whole point of the ((PD-URAA)) template. Why else would there be a warning on the PD-Australia template that the image also has to be in the US, generally by virtue of being either pre-1923 or PD in australia before 1996? The talk page for the PD-Australia template has detailed discussion on this issue. At one point, a user was trying to go through all the PD-australia images to check for this issue, but it seems the effort never finished once he identified all the problem images.[2] Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the owner of this and the following images has explicitly stated that the photos are PD in their records on its online database, it's clearly not claiming copyright in the US. It's worth noting that the Australian War Memorial is a large and sophisticated museum that hosted and sponsored a major GLAM-WIKI conference last year, so it can e presumed to have known what it was doing when it it tagged these images as being PD. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image is PD in Australia. But according to our best reading of the URAA, this image would still be under copyright in the U.S. However, it's important to note that the URAA is not very clear on this. Originally the URAA was implemented in a way that restored copyright to works that had been public before, but the US reversed its position two years later. The current implementation of the URAA is 17 USC 104A, and it would seem that this image is copyrighted in the U.S. as a result. But there is no case law to verify this. It has never been tested in court, and we just don't know how the URAA would be interpreted.

Because of the confusion, Commons is currently accepting images like this, but just until the WMF makes a policy decision, or case law makes the situation more clear. Please Move the image to Commons and tag with ((PD-Australia)) and ((Not-PD-US-URAA)). See Commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and Commons:Commons:Licensing#Uruguay Round Agreements Act for more information. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese PWs Battle of Kapyong 24 April 1951 (AWM P04953).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• PD-Australia but not PD in US because not PD-Australia before 1996. Might or might not be able to keep with fair use rationale Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Image is clearly labelled by the Australian War Memorial as "Copyright expired - public domain" [3]. It was also previously nominated for deletion on 30 May by Calliopejen1 and the result was keep - [4]. What has changed since that decision? Anotherclown (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The people in that deletion discussion were simply wrong. I didn't know that's the way the discussion went, or I would have done a DRV. The archives (located in Australia) are presumably only commenting on the images' copyright status in Australia. The United States does not follow the rule of the shorter term, meaning that images taken elsewhere (and public domain elsewhere) are not necessarily in the public domain in the United States. That is why there is a warning on the ((PD-Australia)) tag. The image also must satisfy the requirements of ((PD-URAA)) to be in the public domain in the United States. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Image is marked as being PD by the Australian War Memorial, which owns the image (which was created by an Australian military photographer). Is there any evidence at all that the photo is under copyright in the US? - given that it's a work of the Australian Government, it's hugely unlikely to have ever been licensed in the US so there are no copyright issues. Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per my rationale in the previous debate. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons per my comment at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 August 4#File:NZ artillery 25 pounder Korea 1951 .28AWM HOBJ2238.29.jpg – Quadell ^(talk) 12:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:C Company 3RAR occupying Hill Salmon 16 April 1951 (AWM P01813).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• as above Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly listed by the Australian War Memorial as "Copyright expired - public domain" [5]. Anotherclown (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The archives (located in Australia) are presumably only commenting on the images' copyright status in Australia. The United States does not follow the rule of the shorter term, meaning that images taken elsewhere (and public domain elsewhere) are not necessarily in the public domain in the United States. That is why there is a warning on the ((PD-Australia)) tag. The image also must satisfy the requirements of ((PD-URAA)) to be in the public domain in the United States. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Image is marked as being PD by the Australian War Memorial, which owns the image (which was created by an Australian military photographer). Is there any evidence at all that the photo is under copyright in the US? - given that it's a work of the Australian Government, it's hugely unlikely to have ever been licensed in the US so there are no copyright issues. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Appears PD to me. Please provide very clear evidence that this image is subject to US copyright. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Commons per my comment at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 August 4#File:NZ artillery 25 pounder Korea 1951 .28AWM HOBJ2238.29.jpg – Quadell ^(talk) 12:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep; file is tagged as non-free-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Horse in Korea.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• as above Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Further research indicates that this image may indeed still be copyright. According to Library and Archives Canada they are the owners of the rights to the image, however they list "Restrictions on use: Nil". [6] I have now added a fair use rationale. Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Pakeman - Senior Bowl Selection Letter.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Though the image consists primarily of text, I believe the amount of text is sufficient for its own copyright claim. A picture of five paragraphs of text is still a reproduction of that copyrighted work. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:P Pakeman - OSA Letter '78 - U18 Provincial Team.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Pakeman - OMSA Letter '76 - U16 Provincial Team.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As above (also contains a logo which may be beyond the threshold of originality). (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Pakeman - OMSA Letter '74 - Adidas Skills Contest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedro Pablo Bermudez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The indicated source states that all rights are reserved ("Todos los Derechos Reservados."). However, according to the license, it has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder (who's not indicated). Mathonius (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parnell Mansion House, Dublin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photo of a painting. Artist is not cited, and it may not have been 70 years since his/her death yet. howcheng {chat} 19:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

((FoP-Ireland))

§93 of the Irish copyright law permits photographers to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details.

• Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, Chapter 6, §93
• Irish copyright law--Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "permanently" -- a painting that's hanging on a wall isn't permanently installed; it can get moved at any time with little effort. A statue that's in a public square, or a mural on a public wall, that's permanent (to the extent that getting rid of it is a fair amount of work). howcheng {chat} 21:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is the dispute on whether the painting is PD? Or the photograph of the painting? The photo itself adds no creative content, and is not subject to copyright. The painting is PD if the painter died before 1941, and the subject died in 1891. Do we have any more information on the painting? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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