The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Good Night Vienna.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cyberia3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file is currently used as the identifying image for the article on the film, Goodnight, Vienna. IMDB instead uses a film poster to illustrate it. As this is not an unambiguous case of valid non-free use, I am putting up for discussion instead of relicensing. The publicity photo itself is unlikely to be PD in the US until at least 2027, with its UK copyright uncertain and depending on whether it can truly be considered "anonymous" rather than at least a co-work of the known director or other named member of the film staff. Felix QW (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that the claim that this work is of an unknown author is incorrect. I would expect that the copyright would be with the producer of the film which in the case is Herbert Wilcox who died in 1977. If so, that would mean the film is still copyrighted in the UK. Absent any sources that identify this as a iconic scene, then there is no option to convert to non-free usage. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC) I uploaded this file on 7 October 2023. It is a newsprint photo of the subject at Horrie Dargie, taken before 1955, which was previously Non-free. I have now found another image, which I believe is Copyright Expired – Public Domain according to its owner Australian War Memorial. It shows the subject more clearly. I'm not sure of its copyright status in the US so I have not added it to Wikimedia Commons. Hence, the above file should now be deleted at my request.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)00:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)00:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I moved the other photo to Commons, as it should be in the public domain in both Australia and the US. Felix QW (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Resolved, converted to ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) -FASTILY 09:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indonesia's NTM Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jayven09maddie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The purple-black part of the image extends beyond the TOO. In its current form, the file can only be used as non-free. — Ирука¹³ 08:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I converted the file's licensing from ((Non-free logo)) to ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) because it seems too simple to eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO United States even if it possibly might be copyrightable under Indonesian copyright law (the most likely country of first publication of the logo) per c:COM:TOO Indonesia and nothing posted above about the blended purple background has changed that opinion. The logo (File:INTM Logo v2 New.jpg) that replaced this file in the main infobox of Indonesia's Next Top Model is not really any more or less complex than the this logo, but it's licensed as "PD-ineligible-USonly". So, if the consensus is to err on the side of caution and treat the file as non-free content, then that newer logo file probably should also be relicensed as non-free as well. Finally, if the consensus is to convert the former logo to non-free, it probably needs to be deleted because the way it's currently being used in Indonesia's Next Top Model#Format fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The given file, INTM Logo v2 New.jpg, is simple. Its background, in particular, can be described as "black, gray checkered." It is impossible to describe the file under discussion as simply and completely at the same time. — Ирука¹³ 01:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The background of the former logo can be described as two shades of purple, at least that's how it looks to me. There are no clear or otherwise discerning elements in the background that would seem to be considered eligible for copyright protection on their own accord and colors are not protected under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is two shades of blue. This is a voluminous, complex fabric-like figure made in shades. — Ирука¹³ 04:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If one would imagine the image under discussion without the text overlay, it would certainly not seem clearly beneath US ToO. So I would err on the side of caution and delete if non-free use cannot be justified. I agree that the currently used logo is much simpler and should stay a free file. Felix QW (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Claimed to be from the LA Public Library but I couldn't find it in their collections. License may be accurate, but without a valid source, we can't really say for sure. I did find it at [1], however, so if the license isn't valid, then it's a copyvio. —holly {chat} 21:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The copyright status of the file is pretty hard to assess without knowing more about its en:provenance; moreover, the claim that the photo is a publicity photo doesn't really matter since such photos from that time period aren't automatically within the public domain unless it can be shown they were either first published without a notice or their copyright wasn't renewed. So, this really can't be kept without some way of verifying that its been released under the claimed license or at least seeing a full version of the photo (front and back) with a border to verify that it was published without a copyright notice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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