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 ⚡ 02:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of parade float, derivative work problem. Same case as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 February 17#File:Valenzuela16Dec202311.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I quote the paraphrased synopsis of our 40 minutes telephone conference with a senior Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights officer on the matters under discussion: "Valenzuela 440, my official reply to your query follows - Point 1: the IPO does not issue verbal answers to present and COVID-19 lockdowns queries. It only issues written official statements upon submission of formal written queries Point 1a: It never issued a written statement to Wikimedia Commons Foundation or to any Internet portals on FoP copyright photography and uploading; Point 2: the IPO including the Courts have never encountered and case of copyright violation FoP photography and uploading to any internet site including Wikipedia; Point 3: the IPO opines that taking photos in the open on FoP subjects and uploading them in Wikimedia-Wikipedia does not raise any copyright violation since the matter is of first impression; Point 3: the IPO's will issue a written official ruling on your query if you submit a formal written query duly signed by you letter, or it may even write Wikimedia Foundation; however, the IPO cannot order Wikimedia or any Internet site to follow the IPO ruling; if your desire further action, you must direct your query to other RP government agencies that have exclusive jurisdiction on the matter of action of RP photos on FoP."

I opted to ask guidance from the IPO office, but I state that any official written ruling I may receive is only persuasive, and cannot in any manner delay the action of deletion or keeping of my photos, nor can it influence Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation, since it is bound by USA laws and Americal Jurisprudence, very sincerely yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 11:58, 25 February 2024 (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-ineligible-USonly)) -Fastily 03:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to change the image's status to non-free soon after FFD discussion ended as "no consensus", so I have done so recently. Nonetheless, going ahead with re-nomination. As potentially unfree, may fail WP:NFCC#8 completely. Honestly, I don't see how omitting the image of the deceased convict's forged signatures impersonating somebody would severely impact readers' understanding of the person in question. George Ho (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be leaning towards relicensing as PD in the US (only) per c:COM:SIG, since the forged signature is very much one used in the ordinary course of business – indeed, that will have been the main motive for forging it in the first place. Felix QW (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

forged signatures are ineligible for US copyright & the image itself is contextually significant as its important piece of evidence used in trial, keep WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is eligible for copyright in the US. A forged signature is still serving the purpose of a signature, and this does not qualify as "sufficiently complex" to overrule the lack of copyright on normal signatures, it's just basic cursive. Tag as free and keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2024 (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: Status quo, unclear whether this is PD in the US. Noting for the record that Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is generally a better venue for complex copyright questions as it gets more traffic -Fastily 03:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for this image's public domain status relies on it being first published in Australia. However, it can be found here with credit to "Usis- Dite" and no mention of Australia at all. If USIS refers to the US Information Service, there might be an argument for PD status as a US government publication; otherwise, if it was first published in the US reasonably close after creation, it could well be PD in the US for lack of copyright renewal. Had it first been published elsewhere (such as in France) or remained unpublished until recently, it may well be copyrighted in the US. Felix QW (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing organizations like this routinely practice copyfraud; I see no reason to believe their claim over the AWM's. A very blatant example of Bridgeman doing this is this one, which very obviously was not taken by a Peter Newark or anyone affiliated with Bridgeman. This one is even more comically ludicrous. Throw their claim in the garbage where it belongs. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that their claim as such is not worth much, and that the AWM is surely right that the image is out of copyright in Australia, regardless of who made it where due to Australia's 50 year term from creation for photographs. However, as an Australian organisation, the AWM only speaks for Australia and has no reason to inform us about the copyright situation in the US, where Wikimedia servers are located. As far as I can tell, the AWM says nothing at all about the provenance of the photo. If it would, that would almost certainly settle the matter. Felix QW (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:37, 25 February 2024 (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.

February 25

File:Valenzuela16Dec2023 71.jpg

File:John Martin Scripps forge Darin Damude signature.jpg

File:French battleship Richelieu in New York.jpg