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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dana Plato's Birth Certificate.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rldaresbury (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No encyclopedic value of this person's birth certificate. (This isn't Barack Obama) B (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2018 (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⚡ 14:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philip Giordano 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Over9000edits (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, distorted version of File:Philip Giordano.jpg, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 04:18, 28 August 2018 (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⚡ 14:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qazaqstan Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ChelseaFunNumberOne (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

unused, superior version available: File:Qazaqstan logo.svg FASTILY 05:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Arianator with love (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2018 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferdinand Zecca.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No real source is given for the image - the image is from the Italian Wikipedia at it:File:Ferdinand_Zecca.jpg but they have no source either. The http headers at [1] claim that they have had the image since February 2011, which is before it was uploaded to the Italian Wikipedia. But they don't give any hint of the original source of the image for knowing whether or not it is really public domain. Ferdinand Zecca was born in 1864. This image description page says that the image is "c. 1900", but if he's 36 in this photo, that's a really rough 36. France (where this portrait presumably originated) is 70 years after the death of the author, so unless we can know who the artist is, we can't know if he died in or before 1948. There are photos of him that purport to be PD (e.g. File:Pathé+Zecca---foto-1906.jpg) so we can't use this one under a claim of fair use. B (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2018 (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: relisted on 2018 September 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teubner covers Gk.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Wayside Calvary at St Bartholomew's Church, Burnley in the late 1950s.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Voxmystica (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image was originally tagged as public domain, but is not - it is from Australia in the 1950s and would need to have been created before 1946 to be PD in the US. As a non-free image, it fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is not required for the reader's understanding of the topic. B (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2018 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:StarsAndStripesMedal.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Luis Santos24 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Though the emblem itself, if it was created by the US government, is public domain, a photograph of a 3-dimensional object gets a copyright and so we can't use it without permission. B (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2018 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry Chapin Midnight Special 1973.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Citybuild122 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a contested PROD so bringing it here for discussion. The image claimed to be public domain because "Copyright expired because the work was published without a copyright notice and/or without the necessary copyright registration. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities per 1923 through 1977".

The original PROD reason was "No proof that this was published without copyright notice. Very doubtful this was the case with the image being made available through Getty Images."

The de-PROD reason was "I disagree with the proposed deletion. Getty Images simply takes images that are already existing, and "improves" quality and charges for a markup. There is no reason to believe that this is from Getty Images. This is from a TV Broadcast in 1973. Take a look at public domain reasons, and you will find the one that states that there was a failure to comply from 1923 to 1977."

There is every reason to believe this is licensed through Getty. The EXIF says so. Getty's own site has this photo. No proof has been offered to support that this was published without a copyright notice. Whpq (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - to accept the image, we need proof that it was published without a copyright notice. An example of proof that we commonly see, for example, is that the studio might send have sent out signed photos with no copyright notice on them. We see plenty of those here. But there needs to be some offer of evidence that there was a pre-1978 publication without a copyright notice. --B (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2018 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Bayt Stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PhilipTerryGraham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Similar to File:Al Thumama Stadium.jpg - this is a stadium that has not yet been built yet. Once the stadium is built, we can reasonably expect to obtain a free photo of this stadium. Or at any point we could get a photo of the construction. WP:NFCC#1 doesn't say "could be created this moment by surfing the internet" - if we can reasonably expect in the future to receive a free photo, then WP:NFCC#1 is not met. B (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2018 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:HellierBack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dtaylor001 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This photo comes from a book called "Classic Bowed Stringed Instruments from the Smithsonian Institution", which was published in Japan in 1986[2]. It seems that the photography is by Sinichi Yokoyama, as opposed to the book merely publishing photos from the Smithsonian. There is no reason to believe that this photo is PD. B (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2018 (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 -FASTILY 00:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:SolomonBlatt.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gamecock (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:William Haselden Ellerbe.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Purported to be public domain based on one user saying so on Talk:South Carolina. But I don't see any basis for that. Sc.gov has a copyright notice. B (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2018 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schleswig Holstein ostrzeliwuje Westerplatte 39 09 01 b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Piotrus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

German photo taken in 1939, would have still been under copyright in Germany in 1996 (i.e., the URAA date), and thus its copyright was extended in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crappy quality image whose deletion will be of little loss to the project, and your defense of anonymous Nazi photographers rights is commendable, from a legalistic point of view. That said, why your argument seems fine, please explain how come we have, for years, accept tens of thousands of similar images on Commons. For example, commons:Category:Images from the German Federal Archive from 1939: unknown German photographer, yet those pics are all licensed PD/CC to German National Archives. Same situation, different licence? Someone is wrong, and if it your logic vs (unknown) logic of volunteers who organized and approved the commons:Commons:Bundesarchiv project, are you sure you are right they are wrong? And if so, perhaps you should start a discussion on Commons about all such pictures. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained to you, the Bundesarchiv holds the copyright to the photos in its collection, so it is free to license them for us to use as it wishes. I don't know why you continue to conflate these two issues. Parsecboy (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove the claim that Bundesarchiv holds such copyright? As far as I know, they are simply a library, and have never bought or otherwise acquired copyright to pictures in their collection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the Bundesarchiv is relevant to this situation? This is not a Bundesarchiv photo. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regrettably delete - I don't see any way this is public domain. --B (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2018 (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.