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 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.
File:Anger1935.gif
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: no WP:NFCC#8 rationale, indeed the claims surrounding the issue are uncitedczar 19:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep? Film still seems to be in copyright (see deletion nomination for the Oberon screenshot). Not sure if the use meets our nonfree criteria -- there is some dispute about his appearance in the film, but do readers really need to see it to understand the topic of the article? Not sure. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (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.
File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogg
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: Relistczar 03:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Missing evidence that the performer released this performance into the public domain. Kellyhi! 07:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also applies to File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogv. Kellyhi! 07:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are dealing with three works here: the composition by Kodály, the performance by Weilerstein, and the video by a Whitehouse employee (which is a derivative work of the two). Works by Whitehouse employees are in the public domain, but I'd assume they can't license the composition or the performance. We do not know for sure which works the notice on the website, "public domain", pertains to. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The performances are always PD at Whitehouse.gov. For some reason the compositions seem to be too. We went through this at WP:FS when it existed. In fact, the licensing has been reviewed by the experts there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the discussion indicates the artist released her performance to the public domain. Kellyhi! 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are working for the Federal Government at the time of performance. ALL works by employees of the Federal Government are out of copyright - see Template:PD-USGov. The work itself is from 1915, hence is out of copyright in the U.S., as indicated. Speedy keep. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Performing for the President doesn't make an artist a Federal employee. Kellyhi! 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case shows that making something for the government doesn't automatically put it in the public domain – it's only PD if you are employed by the government. The performers might not be employees but contractors. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NWhatever the reason, the government says this video is out of copyright. [1] says "public domain" explicitly, without any ambiguity. I presume no-one's actually checked the source link yet; this should have beebn done before nominating it here, as it's entirely unambiguous and would have prevented a bad nomination. We can close this. Adam Cuerden(talk) 08:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The White House can release their recording into the public domain, but the artist retains copyright over her performance. Kellyhi! 08:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is, frankly, your job to prove them wrong, not my job to prove the government correct. The default presumption is PD-USGov barring evidence to the contrary. I'm not even entirely sure that there are performance copyrights under US law, if the underlying work is not modified and the performance is in public. Can you please quote the exact section of the copyright law you think grants such rights? Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case, the default is to assume that it's not PD-USGov. It's too much trouble to get a musician to sign a contract saying that she's an employee of the government and then signing another document afterwards saying that she's fired if she's only making a single performance. It's much more likely that she signed another kind of contract which makes her a contractor and works of contractors are not PD-USGov. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NO. The default is to presume the reliable source saying it's PD is correct. Also, you didn't answer the question about copyright law. Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The default is to assume that the United States Government doesn't make great effort to use extra bureaucracy. In this case, that means that the default is to assume that the woman wasn't an employee but a contractor. There are plenty of situations where government websites state that something is in the public domain without it actually being in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that there was a photograph of Maya Angelou reciting a poem at the inauguration of Bill Clinton that ended up deleted, and that had been listed as PD-USGov. User:Figureskatingfan, do you have any links to discussions which may prove pertinent here? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that one. It was mislabelled by NPR as being an official photo; it wasn't from a governmental site. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this pertains to this discussion, but Adam is correct. The original image, which was used widely in most articles about Angelou, was deleted by Commons because it was mislabeled, as stated on Adam's talk page [2]. We were able to get a replacement, though, after making a request to the Clinton Library, which donated a similar image in color. Also see this discussion on my talk page. [3]Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking it could have been a work for hire; I didn't follow the discussion all too closely. Another case where a work for hire was deleted was an image of an astronaut, taken for NASA by an outside photographer. I don't remember the name of the file or who was depicted (hence why I asked about Angelou). My point is that there have been cases where works taken by an outsider for the US government have been deleted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: In any case, they're never deleted by default with no evidence whatsoever but base and unfounded speculation. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But deletion does happen, even when the image is hosted on a US government website. I can't figure out how things are working in this case, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Basically, people are.. deciding thatthere's A. a performer's copyright under US law (and that they don't need to prove it), and B. Presuming that they know better than the U.S. government who actually got the person to perform what might be in the details of them getting the person to perform that could affect the copyright status. It's basically all speculation and panic about how it might be in copyright because of imaginary reasons without the slightest bit of evidentiary backing. Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For A, the US copyright office defines the holder of the copyright over a recording as "the performer(s) whose performance is fixed, or the record producer who processes the sounds and fixes them in the final recording, or both." So, in other words, it's quite possible the performer maintains a claim of copyright (though it is likewise possible that the performer doesn't). As I said, I think this is a very gray area, and as such I'm not willing to give a "keep" or a "delete" vote. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a gray area indeed. I did some reading (references upon request) and turns out performances are eligible for copyright. A performance is a derivative work of the composition. I found differing opinions on whether it is possible to perform a work at all without creating a derivative work (say, even a rigorous note by note performance still entails artistic interpretation and invariably the choice of instrumentation). This is further complicated by the fact that the recording is also a derivative work of the performance. This is where it gets particularly tricky, because the U.S. copyright law on one hand has special provisions for derivative works that are audio recordings (esp. concerning transferability). On the other hand, the law has confusing definitions of what an audio recording is (we are dealing with a video, which may not be an audio recording in the legal sense). There are too many what-if's both ways for someone who is not an intellectual property lawyer to conclude whether this is a copyrightable derivative work. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person who posted this on the White House website is not likely to have thought through the copyright issues extremely thoroughly. According to the legislative history of the relevant copyright law about audio recordings, "The copyrightable elements in a sound recording will usually, though not always, involve 'authorship' both on the part of the performers whose performance is captured and on the part of the record producer responsible for setting up the recording session, capturing and electronically processing the sounds, and compiling and editing them to make the final sound recording. ... As in the case of motion pictures, the bill does not fix the authorship, or the resulting ownership, of sound recordings, but leaves these matters to the employment relationship and bargaining among the interests involved."[4] Here, essentially only if there was a contract between the performer and the federal government making her a federal employee (extremely doubtful for a one-night performance) would the performer's contribution be in the public domain. I suppose there also could have been a term in her contract that any performance would be released into the public domain but that seems like an extremely unusual term to have in a contract. Note that if an artist creates a work for the federal government on contract, the federal government can actually own a copyright on it because the copyright can be transferred to the federal government. I just don't think a blanket "public domain" statement on the website is sufficient here. Government websites are wrong about copyright all the time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this argument nonsense; an attempt to limit the public domain by pure speculation. You don't know what arrangements were made, but are quite happy to list specific possibilities that might suit your view, maybe. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be relisted but I'm getting a script error right now so maybe later. I wanted to add that we've deleted many White House videos from Commons, including performances of material from Hamilton (the musical) and a video introduction to Merrick Garland. They were listed as in the public domain but the WH did not do due diligence to the composition copyright (in the first example) and to the source material (photos and materials from Garland's early life, in the second example). Can't give WH carte blanche on multimedia. czar 19:32, 26 July 2016 (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.
File:Acid3-webos.png
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 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 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.
File:Afrimilwarcanoeban.jpg
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.
Delete - unused image of text. Kellyhi! 09:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because unsourced. Otherwise I would have voted keep. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2016 (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.
File:AHmir.jpg
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 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.
File:Air Force Memorial at NightEdit 1.jpg
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 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.
File:Air Force Memorial at Night edit2.jpg
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 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.
File:Albanian Royal Navy.jpg
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.
Delete - unused file, unclear public domain claim. Kellyhi! 10:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficiently described to be useful. No record of the source book available anywhere, and the same uploader has also said it was published in 1936 and 1938 so I'm not sure what's going on there.[5]. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2016 (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.
File:Albanians during the Battle of Kacanik.jpg
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.
Delete for same reasons as immediately preceding image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2016 (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.
File:Albuquerque police.png
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.
Unclear whether photo is in public domain. Source says "Copyright unknown". Kellyhi! 10:07, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:The gunner.jpg
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.
Delete Scottish sculptor with enough examples of work subject to freedom of panorama, so no need to use nonfree images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2016 (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.
File:Ancient Egyptian Art.JPG
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.
Unclear whether the uploader is the copyright holder. Kellyhi! 10:51, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:AnguiEspina.jpg
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.
Delete - unused personal image. Kellyhi! 10:54, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:ANI1.jpg
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 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.
File:ANI2.jpg
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 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.
File:Anton Haus 1913.jpg
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 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.
File:Antonella Gambotto-Burke 2.jpg
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.
Appears to be professional portrait - no evidence the uploader is copyright holder. Kellyhi! 12:51, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Antonio Arenas, president of Peru (1885-1886).jpg
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 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.
File:Antoniowithmcguiness.jpg
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.
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kellyhi! 12:53, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:AnzhongWang.JPG
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 Enough time has passed with no explanation from the uploader about the source. If the uploader returns and provides some details the image can always be restored if need be. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kellyhi! 13:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelly: Do you doubt the uploader is the copyright holder? In my view it's borderline considering that it's pretty low-res and could be an official photo, but the uploader appears to have been affiliated with Baylor so plausibly could have taken the image himself. I couldn't find the image elsewhere online predating its upload here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calliopejen1:, I just thought it was suspect that it's web resolution and the only metadata is from Picasa. Kellyhi! 20:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vhsatheeshkumar, can you tell us more about how you took this image? czar 19:37, 26 July 2016 (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.
File:Apple free to use.PNG
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.
Delete, unused clip art. Kellyhi! 13:17, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Aquajobs.PNG
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.
Delete - unused image of text. Kellyhi! 13:23, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Arachnotherajuliae.JPG
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 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.
File:Savarkar-2.jpg
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.
Undated image, so it's not easy to determine if the URAA cut-off applies. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Savarkar.gif
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.
Image is unused, and seemingly undated so it's not possibly to easily determine if the URAA cutoff applies Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Sawai Man Singh II and his wife, greeting their subjects.jpg
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.
Unused, and no date given so it's not possible to determine if it's suitable for Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Sayla revenu stamp.jpg
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 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 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.
File:Viswamohini 1940.JPG
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 poster itself may be free, but this image is clearly from a third party site. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Aguacates en la Plaza .jpg
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.
This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. The Wikipedia uploader claims to be the copyright holder, but has not provided any evidence of this, and the user names are very different. Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Aberdeen view from high rise towards the sea.jpg
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.
This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:48-24atSonyHD500CaliforniaSpeedway.jpg
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.
This is listed as cc-by-nc-nd on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Sibiricasubhemachalana.jpg
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 because the dates indicated imply that URAA recopyrighting applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
R.I, Pocock seems to have been a British zoologist working in (then British) India, where was the work mentioned first published?. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From a search of Worldcat it appears to have been first published in London (not India). The first publication in India I see was in 1961 (original publication in London appears to have been in 1939). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2016 (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.
File:SomNathSharma.jpg
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.
Source is a 404 so it's not possible to get a date on this, which would help determine if this image is post 1941. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Archive version of source doesn't have date.[6]Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2016 (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 as non-free, like last timeczar 19:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject of this image died prior to 1900, then this image doesn't need to be under NFCC. Its PD in India (and US) and thus should be moved to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Sumangali 1940.JPG
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.
Poster is free, but the photo is a clearly watermarked image from a third-party site. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:V Nagel.jpg
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: insufficient source infoczar 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image has no author data, the source work is from 1981, but given the subject of the images died in the early 1920's, it's clearly from an earlier publication. The hlaftoning is very evident though... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:V.O.Chidambaram Pillai photo.jpg
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.
File description page says 1945 publication, but as the subject died in 1936, this clearly an earlier image, so it's an issue of quality and sourcing. It would be nice to find the original this is seemingly cropped from. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marmiraja, how do we know it was published in 1945? Didn't see this in the source website... czar 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Original image (or at least a couple steps closer to it) looks to be [7] on [8]. No help with canonical sourcing. —Cryptic 02:21, 27 July 2016 (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 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.
File:S Satyamurti.jpg
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: lacks the authorship/publication info to ascertain copyright statusczar 19:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undated image, clearly pre 1943, so it narrowing it down to pre 1941 that would determine if this one can be retained. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this portrait was made well before 1941, judging from the many later photographs.Fconaway (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anything specific you'd note ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image was derived from a government publication, the Lok Sabha commemoration; any Indian government publication is free of copyright. As I do not have a copy of this document at hand, I have written to the Sanmar Group to retrieve their on-line re-publication of the picture (in The Matrix, June, 2005). They seem to have removed the link, which did work when the photo was first used on Wikipedia.Fconaway (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indian government works are not automatically PD. In India, they are protected by copyright for 60 years from publication in India. In the United States, this is sometimes extended to 95 years. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2016 (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: Keepczar 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The art shown is clearly ancient (and PD), however the work this was published in is from 1943. Does this count as Govt work or personal (given the source)? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Aruna asaf ali.jpg
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 as non-free, no source infoczar 17:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When was the photo taken? If it's prior to 1941 then this image might be free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:ArunBabu.jpg
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: tagged as no license—seven days to complyczar 18:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An uploaders own photo cannot be PD-india Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2016 (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.
Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Aswathamma actress.jpg
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: lacks the authorship/publication info to ascertain copyright statusczar 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image is undated, so not easy to determine if pre or post 1941 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:AVMeiyappan young.jpg
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: insufficient source information, failed source verification, no Internet Archive backupczar 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image does not appear on source link provided, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:CamillusMcElhinneyPoliticalCompass.jpg
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.
Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:DavidVarsity.jpg
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.
It says "Photo by Carole Jo Nugent". Who is Carole Jo Nugent? Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Begumshahnawaz.jpg
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: insufficient source information to determine copyrightczar 17:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undated, so not possible to determine is pre-1941 or not. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the source country India or Pakistan? When this was first published, both India and Pakistan were part of British India, so I'm not sure how to tell if the country of first publication was 'India' or 'Pakistan', or maybe even 'Britain'... --Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Lawcourtsresize.jpg
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.
Unused, low resolution. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:TK Colour white.gif
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.
Unused, no foreseeable use, wrong copyright tag. Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Dixiebar.gif
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 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.
File:BhupendraNathBose.jpg
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: insufficient info on first publication/authorshipczar 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a low-quality photo of a portrait, both the author and date seem to be unknown. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2016 (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: Relistczar 19:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1950+50 year term =2000 which post dates URAA, however I am not seeing much in the image which is copyrightable, other than the crest. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's too risky for de minimis: The side of the book with the crest seems to be a key part of the image, seeing as it identifies the cover.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (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.
File:RI logo1.jpg
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.
Only sourced to Thai Wikipedia, No date and no authorship provided. Image is unused, and very low res. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg
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: convert to fair use – needs rationale, tagged for dated speedy F6czar 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, No date, No author, bad source. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now it is used (in Gharam wa intiqam), and the movie is dated to 1944. Since it is a 'screenshot' of a movie, I'm not sure that author/source are necessary. Are there still copyright concerns now that we know the date? ★ BigrTex 22:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes an issue of sourcing/authorship, which isn't the ((information)) block. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sfan00 IMG:, I don't see what the sourcing/authorship issue is, now that we know it's a screenshot. I do see a copyright issue: Since the film was made by people who died less than 1996-50 (thus the copyright was still extant at the URAA recopyrighting date) years ago, it may be URAA copyrighted until 2038 and thus non-free.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Non-free status, but I would suggest it's fair use in the one article it's currently in use in to identify the film concerned, given the association of it with the actress shown (That it was the last film of the actrss shown is mentioned in the article in which the photo appears.)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2016 (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.
File:Daoud Hosni.jpg
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: insufficient source info for PD; seven days to convert for fair use – needs rationale, tagged for dated speedy F6czar 18:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No author,date source, in page linked on other language wikipedia ( used Google Translate to check.). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Heliopolis Al-Gamea in Al-Gamea Square (2).jpg
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.
No source, and no details of original publication Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Heliopolis Baron Palace (2).jpg
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.
No source, and no details of original publication Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Heliopolis Baron Palace Gardens (2).jpg
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.
No source, and no details of original publication Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Heliopolis Old Inhabitants 2 (2).jpg
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.
No source, and no details of original publication Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 4 (2).jpg
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.
No source, and no details of original publication Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 5 (2).jpg
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.
No source, and no details of original publication Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Jani Vruho, Albanian publisher and Rilindas.jpg
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.
No source, and no details of original publication Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Leila Mourad.jpg
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.
No author, and no details of original publication. This appears to be a portrait photo rather than 'documentary' photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:SamiaGamal1958.jpg
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.
Bad source (Only sourced to Archives), and no details of authorship given. This is clearly a staged/studio photo vs news/documentary type. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Soad Hosny and Abdel-Halim Hafiz.jpg
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.
No source, and no details of original publication Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Soad Hosny's Birth Certificate.jpg
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: Relistczar 03:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No source, and no details of original publication, clearly an official document, the uploader is NOT the author of the original. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The description says Soad Hosny's Birth Certificate. If Soad Hosny is Soad Hosny, then it was published sufficiently long ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:SCPh Justice Arturo Brion Official Portrait.jpg
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: Relistczar 18:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image is not directly on source stated. This would however appear to be an official portrait, Are Phillipine Govt images PD? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are non-free on Wikipedia (((Non-free Philippines government))) but public domain on Commons (((PD-PhilippinesGov))). This is a problem which needs to be solved, but I'm not sure how to solve it. Not sure how to solve it, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:OldKalibo b.jpg
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 1949+50>1996 so URAA recopyrighting could apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Author, dates from 1949 so can't immediatly assume it is PD without more detail. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not very exact. If someone wrote |Source = [[National Portrait Gallery]] without any further information, then we wouldn't accept that as an acceptable source (the National Portrait Gallery has too many different pictures). Is this museum any different? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Ayub khan at school.jpg
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 seeing as the GFDL-heirs claim doesn't seem to be contested, but with removal of the PD templates. The Musa khan image will need its own discussion. Obiter dictum: As for not having GFDL-heirs, Commons as a dedicated image repository probably has more licensing infrastructure than we do.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
License conflict, If it's an old photo, it can't be self. And if not pre 1946 it's possibly been restored by URAA. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sfan00 IMG, I suggest that you read the text in the infobox. It says My father took this picture, while he was studying at school. Assuming that the uploader's father is dead, this seems consistent with the ((GFDL-self)) claim: the uploader would be the copyright holder as the heir of his father.
Note that the uploader's other file (File:Musa khan at school.jpg) also has ((GFDL-self)) but with a claim that the author is unknown (suggesting that it isn't possible for the uploader to tell if he is the copyright holder to that picture or not). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2016 (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.
Date is not precise enough to determine if URAA is applicable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2016 (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.
File:Skin shade map.gif
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 ★ BigrTex 20:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Part of mass request on commons here. Superseding image here, therefore redundant, weird thing with greenland, bad projection, bad general layout, low res. AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I think user's mass-deletion request on commons is ill-advised, I see no reason to keep this particular awful, unsourced and unused image from back in 20054 around in Wikipedia namespace, so, support. --dab(𒁳) 10:19, 17 May 2016 (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.
File:Africa skin color.png
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.
Part of mass request on commons here. Superseding image here, therefore redundant, bad crop, bad general layout, low res AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (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.