< April 19	April 21 >

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free equivalents available - for instance, File:Asa Candler 2.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 01:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading a free image! I've nominated this for speedy deletion under G7. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 01:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much an obsolete file, has since been superseded by File:HVD Logo shaded.png (and that file's .svg file), due to its typographical error: "Holograpic". Not used in any important articles and shouldn't be used in the future. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, does not contribute anything to the article in terms of understanding, replaceable by free image since it is from the tour supporting the said song/album. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, does not contribute anything to the article in terms of understanding, replaceable by free image since just the artist's image —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current revision violates WP:NFCC#3a: no need for two posters. Stefan2 (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is a merged, means combined single poster of two. Due to the article is with merged content. There are no two files. But only one file. So it doesn't violate WP:NFCC#3a. Raghusri (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Makes ~~little~~ no sense at all. We merge two articles doesn't mean we mix the posters too!!! The poster should go according to the article name and this completely fails here. TheStrike Σagle 16:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the image per the above reason i stated. Raghusri (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical data, that should be included directly into article text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image replaced by math in relevant article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this file myself several years ago, in order to illustrate a card game whose article no longer exists. Thus, this file is now pointless. Deadbeef (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, Text logo superceeded by vector version. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, text album cover. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom. Image has been removed from the article and tagged as an orphan. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. Also, the fair use rationale isn't fully compliant with WP:NFCC#10c. For example, it isn't clear to which article the fair use rationale applies. Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do we need a non-free file of this? Isn't it possible to produce something similar without having to resort to non-free images at all? Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not discussed critically. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: for example, the FUR doesn't contain the title of the article to which it refers. Unclear why it wouldn't be possible to create a free replacement, so presumably violates WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this indeed is copyrighted as claimed, then it presumably violates WP:NFCC#1 since any photo of him published during his lifetime should be in the public domain. Doesn't look like a self-shot as the uploader has claimed. Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why do we think that any photo of him was ever published during his lifetime? This wasn't a politician or high official in the West, where photographs of such people were common and published. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shows Clark about 1870-80. Is it the case that any photo from 1870-80 is out of copyright. This looks like an example of having clicked the wrong button on the upload form, hence WP:NFCC#1. Can we fix this? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is the case that any published photo from 1870-80 is out of copyright, as are unpublished photos if the photographer is unidentified. However, if the photographer is identified and the photo is unpublished, then the requirement is that the photographer must have died before 1943, which isn't necessarily the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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, pending wider discussion on the general case of photos created between 1892 and 1923 with few details available. See my note below. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this indeed is copyrighted as claimed, then it should be deleted per WP:NFCC#8. Claimed to be from 1918, but no information about any publication of the photo, so copyright status in USA can't be determined. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image from 1918 so copyright has expired and it has been tagged incorrectly. The uploader has made the same mistake with a few other images. It is now tagged correctly, but should probably be uploaded to commons. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, image was improperly tagged. As an image taken in 1918 it is now PD in both Australia and the United States. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- It is in the public domain in Australia, but it is only in the public domain in the United States if it has been published. If not published before 2003, then the problem is that ((PD-US-unpublished)) isn't satisfied, and that template unfortunately describes the copyright status of all unpublished photos, regardless of which country they were taken in. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is also public domain in USA due to being public domain in Australia in 1994. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? USA doesn't use the rule of the shorter term on Australian works. ((PD-URAA)) can only be used for works published before 1 March 1989, but there is no evidence that this was published before that date. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What happened to January 1, 1996?[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - On 1 January 1996, the copyright was restored if it had previously expired in the United States due to publication without copyright notice or renewal, if still protected by copyright in Australia on that date. However, if the copyright never had expired in the United States (due to the photo never having been published or due to all publications having complied with US requirements for copyright notices and renewals), then nothing happened with the copyright status on 1 January 1996. See Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright (about this issue in general) and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beit Alpha 1933.jpg (about unpublished photos). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that assessment is correct, pretty much the entire collection of AU photos on Wikipedia/Commons will need to be deleted (they are mainly from government archives where the publication date, if any, is unknown, as is authorship the majority of the time). When does the copyright expire on non-published imagery? Most editors were under the impression that if an image was PD in AU on 1 Jan 1996, it was PD in the US. -- Nbound (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Have found the answer to my own question, for an unpublished work to be PD in the US the author must have died before 1943 (ie. 70yrs ago), or if that is unknown, anonymous, made for hire, etc. its not PD unless it was made before 1893 (ie. 120years ago). So yeah, goodbye every AU pic on wikipedia, as it will be nearly impossible to prove publication in most cases. -- Nbound (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sadly, it does make things more difficult. It menas that in the absnece of publication dates or a known author that fair use rationales will have to be added. NtheP (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you provide anything from a reliable source that backs up this viewpoint? Its going to be a pretty big thing if we end up having to delete thousands of Australian photos. I would also suggest you bring this up somewhere more appropriate, such as a venue with wider editor participation (one of the major noticeboards perhaps?). This has very wide reaching consequences, and it seems a little unlikely that this has not been noticed until now, so many years after Wikipedia was founded. -- Nbound (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not difficult. To be published on Wikipedia as PD images, the images have to be both PD in their home country and the US. The US because that's where the Wikipedia servers are. Sadly for us US law puts a lot of emphasis on date of publication and deems that unpublished works, regardless of their country of origin (section 104, 17 USC), are only PD in the US if either a) they have a known author with a known date of death in which case they are PD 70 years after the death of author or b) anonymous or author unknown images become PD 120 years from date of creation. All the US conditions are specified here. This topic was discussed in quite some detail at Template talk:PD-Australia in 2007 so it's not a new discovery. NtheP (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the discussion directly, im having trouble finding any discussion involving unpublished material. I still think this needs to be discussed on a larger platform, every AU wikipedia page ive visited with old photographs has images that will be affected by this. Here we are getting your side, and I believe you are likely correct, but before we do the wholesale deletion of AU imagery (which is what will need to be done), we need some more input to confirm this, rather then slowly nom-ing deletion for photos slower than they will be uploaded. Changes to the PD-Australia template would also be needed to help editors know if their image is covered. -- Nbound (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's Template talk:PD-Australia#Restored US copyrights and the sub-headings below that. The discussion isn't focused on unpublished material per se but the fact that what is PD in one jurisdiction isn't necessarily PD in another jursidiction which is the heart of this issue. It doesn't mean wholesale deletion but it does mean that a lot of images need fair use rationales adding and if they can't meet NFCC then they would need to be deleted. It's a similar story for UK images and it doesn't help that both ((PD-Australia)) & ((PD-UK)) give the impression that images that are PD in those countries are also PD in the US. Please don't misunderstand my position on this, I'd much rather the images stay and I've no desire for whoelsale deletions, I'm just pointing out the copyright rules that need to be met for images to remain/be uploaded. I agree it needs wide discussion, choose your forum; Wikipedia talk:Image use policy perhaps? NtheP (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the NFCC means that most will go. You might have the wrong impression of my position, if they have to go, then they have to go, even if that means some major deletions, Im not freaking out or anything, but just higlighting the enormity of this, and that it extends beyond single image noms. All I want is that the site is clear on what is acceptable. That infringing images are gone. That we have the correct interpretation. And that the licensing template also reflects reality. Image use policy is probably a good place to start. It would be best if you kicked things off, as you obviously understand your own position the best. -- Nbound (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by closing admin[edit]

This is a difficult case, and there are many opportunities for confusion. To clarify, the fact that this image is from Australia really isn't relevant. Any image will be legally considered copyrighted in the U.S. if the following three criteria are all true: (1) it was created after 1892, and (2) it was never published, or was first published in 2003 or later, and (3) the author is unknown. That's the law in the U.S.

This could be a major problem, because we have many, many old photographs on Wikipedia where we don't have any information on who the photographer was and whether it was ever published. In practice, we've pretty much just ignored the issue and assumed photos from before 1923 are PD unless specific evidence comes up to show it was unpublished. After all, it would be exceedingly unlikely for a person or company to successfully claim copyright on such an image. Take the general case of a photo created between 1892 and 1923 with few details available: for a claimant to legally show that they hold the copyright and can restrict its use, they would have to show (1) that they can prove in court that they know who took the photo, (2) that the photographer was still alive in 1943, (3) that the copyright was legally transferred through inheritance or otherwise to them, (4) that the photo was never published before 2003. If a claimant could show all these things, then they could be shown legally to be the copyright holder. Such a situation is very unlikely, and, in my opinion, the chances that we are accidentally hosting copyrighted content through this scenario is small.

We as a community need to decide what to do in this specific case. There are two options. (1) We can specifically disallow images from 1893-1922 with no details on authorship and publication. There will be many thousands (tens of thousands?) of historic images that will need to be deleted or "FUR-ed" in this case, the vast majority of which will actually be in the public domain. Or (2), we can clarify that we generally assume a pre-1923 photo is in the public domain unless evidence is shown otherwise. But we may find we are hosting a few copyrighted images in this case. (If wider discussion is started on this matter, would someone please notify me? I would like to take part.)

I don't believe this matter is currently settled. I believe it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter in a general way, rather than on a case by case basis. Until that happens, I see no reason to single out this image. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to violate WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10b. Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BaldBoris 23:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that the file should be deleted as an unused unfree file, then it is better to just use ((subst:orfud)) (or simply doing nothing as a bot will add that tag automatically if no one else does it). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 20

File:Asa Griggs Candler.jpg

File:HVD logo.svg

File:Taylor Swift Sparks Fly Performance.jpg

File:Taylor Swift We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together (music video).jpg

File:Eega and Naan Ee merged film poster.jpg

File:Kreatinins-Kaliumpikrates-pd.PNG

File:OC formula.jpg

File:4-man kemps.jpg

File:Norway at Epcot.PNG

File:Sammy Hagar - (Sittin' on) The Dock of the Bay single back cover.jpg

File:Liverpool Hospital Nursing Graduates 1962.tif

File:Powerwave Tool.jpg

File:Wavefront Heartbeat Moving Gif.gif

File:Power Pulse Tool2.jpg

File:Henry Martyn Clark.jpg

File:Liverpool District Hospital 1918.tif

Comments by closing admin[edit]

File:Power Pulse Good Vibrations.jpg

File:Logo of British Cycling.jpg