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.
This 2018 archived file (file was pulled from an inactive web archive) was replaced by an updated and actively used file (copyright permissions given and publicly accessible). In addition, the 2018 file is no longer connected to the Schumacher wiki. Changes should be watched for potential vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyawnd8 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 September 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: keep. ✗plicit 14:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting in an yearbook is not a publication. — Ирука13 02:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1978, publication meant "revealed to the public or made available to make copies", and we have U.S. case law that a photograph became published when it left the custody of the original photographer. This was clearly published. Could be moved to Commons as ((PD-US-expired)) Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under copyright law, publication is the distribution of copies a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending. Offering to distribute copies to a group of people for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display also constitutes publication.[1] — Ирука13 18:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the definition of publication under the Copyright Act of 1976, which became effective on January 1, 1978, and was not applied retroactively. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg for how murky publication was under the Copyright Act of 1909. I have paraphrased how pre-1978 publication differs from the current definition. Regarding below, a FfD is not a good place to find sources for photos, yes, better sourcing for this would be better, but it definitely looks like a early 20th Century photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has file problems in history, so in the end, from his 54 edits, only this file remained. This is a good reason to re-find the source of this photo in order to establish the date and place of publication. — Ирука13 18:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploader had provided more detailed information than just the two words Yearbook and Google, it might have been easier to determine if it has been published. Yearbook: Which, when, where? Who was the publisher? Where can I verify that it was published in a yearbook? Google: A search engine finds pages on the Internet, but as there are millions of pages on the Internet, it can't be expected that you should check all of those to find out if this appears on a page somewhere or if there is more detailed information on that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a yearbook is a publication, meaning this copyright is long since expired. jp×g 22:38, 8 September 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.
File:Adobe Acrobat Pro DC main window in Windows 8.1u1.png
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.
An unused outdated image with questionable license. — Ирука13 02:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:14, 3 September 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.
File:I-180S crash.jpg
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: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 08:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
((PD-URAA)) does not fit, as there is no information where the image was published before 1978. Where the uploader got the information about "50 years after creation" is unknown. — Ирука13 03:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find it hard to believe that the Soviet government was taking photographs of planes to just keep in a box and not send to anybody. If the photo was taken in 1940, it seems like it would be a part of the Soviet war effort -- why would they just refuse to publish it throughout the entirety of the war? jp×g 22:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Governments likes to publish failures of its military equipment. During the war. Marked "Секретно". — Ирука13 07:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it unlikely that a picture stamped "sekretno" (secret) was published. As a secret picture, it was likely only used internally by the authorities and the manufacturer of the plane, not published. Secret information is sometimes de-classified later and can then be published, but probably not during the war. Searching for the ISBN on the file information page, I found this page which says that the cited book was published in 2001. Without more information, we normally have to assume that secret photos are unpublished, and the only information we have is that it was published in 2001, which could be the first time it was published.
If this was the first publication, then we have copyright terms as follows:
Russia: It would seem to have entered the published domain as an unpublished anonymous work 50 years after creation per c:Template:PD-Russia-1996.
United States: As an unpublished work, it has a subsisting copyright (see c:COM:SC), so the status in Russia on the URAA date does not matter. First published more than 25 years after creation, so the copyright term runs for 120 years from creation (until the end of 2060). --Stefan2 (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the COM:SC link you provided, but I am a little confused: is this interpretation based on actual precedent from case law, or is it a hypothetical situation based on interpolating statutes from different countries? jp×g 18:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with the way United States copyright law evolved over time. US law looks at the date of first publication, even if the first publication was decades after publication.
First published before 1928: The copyright has expired and there's no need to look at the historical copyright rules.
First published before 1964: The work required a copyright renewal or else the copyright expired 28 years after publication.
First published before 1 March 1989: The work required a copyright notice, or else the copyright expired immediately upon publication. If the first publication was after 1977, the lack of a copyright notice could be fixed by registering the work for copyright within five years.
Published at any time: The source country had to sign a copyright treaty with the United States, or else the copyright expired immediately upon publication. In the case of the Soviet Union, this happened on 27 May 1973 with the signing of the Universal Copyright Convention.
Not published at all: Due to a bug in the copyright law, the copyright was perpetual (until the end of 2002).
If the copyright hasn't expired under the above rules, the work is copyrighted in the United States until the end of the full United States copyright term (normally one of 95 years from publication, 120 years from creation or 70 years from the death of the author). You only need to look at United States law. Source country copyright law doesn't matter at all.
If the copyright has expired under the above rules, you need to look at the URAA rule, which requires looking at Russian law in addition to United States law. If the work was still copyrighted in Russia on 1 January 1996, the United States copyright to the work was revived. The work is now to be treated as published with notice, with renewal and with a copyright treaty.
There is no evidence that the photo was published before 2001. As the copyright to an unpublished work was perpetual, the copyright had not expired in the United States. In 2001, the only requirement for copyright protection was a copyright treaty, which Russia had. Thus, the work is copyrighted in the United States, and what Russian copyright law says does not matter when establishing the United States copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the photo was taken nearly a hundred years ago; what entity would hold the copyright in this case? jp×g 00:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone. If an old photo is copyrighted, the only way for you to identify the copyright holder is typically to publish the photo and wait until the photographer's heirs sue you for violating the copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:45, 10 September 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: Convert to PD. Defaulting to ((PD-ineligible-USonly)), however anyone is free to update the license to PD-logo if this is PD in the UK as well. -FASTILY 08:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Former logo, fails WP:NFCC#8 as it doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the article. There is a paragraph about logo histories, but most of it isn't specifically about this logo. Also, fails WP:NFCC#3- minimal number of non-free items in an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other PD-Man.Utd. badges at this Commons category that could be used as a visual reference for former club logos. I don't really mind if the nominated NFCC image is removed, so proceed as you deem appropriate. Fma12 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:43, 2 September 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: keep. ✗plicit 23:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука13 15:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image seems to me a classic, professional publicity or calling card image. It has been signed by the subject, so clearly given away by her. This is generally held to meet the standards of "publication" by contemporary US law. For transfer to Commons, one could wait for another two years until 120 years after creation and tag with ((PD-old-assumed)) to be sure that it is also PD in the UK. Felix QW (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is public domain in the US as it was obvious published before 1928 as Felix says. I also agree that we can wait a few years before transferring this to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia claims c. 1905 but I can't find this information on the linked source page. Where does the year come from? The year was added in Special:Diff/186889035 by User:Ssilvers.
This was obviously published and presumably shortly after it was taken. Unless she is in her 40s or older on the photo, it should be in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: copyright has expired, per above. jp×g 22:38, 8 September 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.
File:Voronoi.pdf
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.
Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. jp×g 22:24, 8 September 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.
File:EmleyOld.jpg
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.
There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука13 16:07, 2 September 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.
File:Scottsville passenger station.jpg
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.
There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука13 16:17, 2 September 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.
File:F.6 Forlanini Airship.jpg
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 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.
File:Gaithersburg, MD police car (c. 1983).jpg
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.
There is no evidence that the photo was published between 1978 and 1989. — Ирука13 19:16, 2 September 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.
File:Fernando de Córdoba monument.png
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: Missing verifiable source. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 08:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo with ((CC-BY-NC-ND)) license. — Ирука13 11:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested speedy deletion. See the file talk page. I do not believe the licence at the bottom of the web page can be trusted, but I have no proof that the photo was published prior to 1928. Srnec (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:19, 2 September 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.
File:Ildebrando Goiran2.jpg
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 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.
File:Nus fantastiques vus par Julien Mandel - 1932.jpg
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 image is not in the public domain in the US, as it was published after 1928. — Ирука13 23:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, there is no indication that this work was ever published in the United States. Please, refer to this discussion on Commons for more context.--Kacamata!Dimmi!!! 00:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was only published outside the United States, there's a much greater probability that the picture gets the full copyright term of 95 years from publication in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find this work (nor anything else by Julien Mandel) in the Catalogs of Copyright Entries at archive.org, so it appears it was not registered for copyright in the US. It might have been published in the US without notice, registration etc., but I don't see any evidence for that. It is described as being published in Paris in 1932, author is Julien Mandel, who died in 1961. So the work is still protected by copyright in France now (70 years pma), and it was protected by copyright in France on July 1, 1996, even with the 58 years pma term they had on that date (Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights). Which means the Uruguay Round Agreements Act took effect and restored that work's US copyright, for a term of 95 years (until the end of 2027), without the need to observe any formalities like a copyright notice etc. --Rosenzweig (talk) 06:53, 9 September 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.
File:CleeseBoothMarriage.png
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.
An unused file of dubious encyclopedic value. — Ирука13 23:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 03:18, 3 September 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.
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2023+September+2%23File%3AGaithersburg%2C+MD+police+car+%28c.+1983%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
