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: There seems to still be a lot of uncertainty/confusion about the copyright status, so defaulting to status quo (non-free). As always, anyone is free to update the file description (no followup discussion necessary) if they can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -Fastily 07:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The main building of the Baltic Exchange after its completion in 1903.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cmglee (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I couldn't find any information about the author of this 1903 photograph. Could ((PD-old-assumed)) apply here? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Bing image searches didn't return any author info. Another site listing it is http://jbarchive.co.uk/products/lo-5673-the-baltic-mercantile-shipping-exchange-st-mary-axe-london-c1905 . ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths states for the UK, "70 years if the author is unknown //

70 years after release; if not released, 70 years after making (sound recordings).""). cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image probably appears in a book from an art exhibition based around the story of the building, referenced in the web page where it was linked. The book is FACE-TO-FACE: The Story of the Baltic Exchange, published by the Museum of Estonian Architecture and Lugemik (2016). I imagine it would be easy enough to check; the book now costs a fiver. There are a further two or three published books about the building which could be checked, available at the British Library, if anyone has the inclination.

The image is also in an archival library (twice); hey give a date of c 1905. The picture is clearly intended for publication, looking at the caption which is given with the print. I think you can safely assume it was published in the UK, if not the USA>

The picture also appears on the Baltic Exchange website, labelled as "Timeline 1903". While perhaps less of a reliable source, it could be considered good enough. Jim Killock (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to free use: I'm not an expert, but I'm still pretty sure that PD-old-assumed applies here. Apparently, the name of the author is not known, and the image is over 120 years old. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheImaCow, Ixfd64, and Cmglee: Has the photo been published previously? If so, when? I'd be too cautious about transferring an unpublished photo to Commons if it was first published between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002. Such works may still be copyrighted till 31 December 2047 or greater (link). George Ho (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no idea. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think PD-OLD-assumed just takes the view that images published over 120 years ago are so unlikely to be in copyright that WP takes the risk, until told otherwise. The fact is that some theoretical possibilities do occur, like the person was 15 in 1900 and lived until 95, and therefore managed to bring their works back into copyright. On publication, the picture seems quite commonly used, as it is of the opening of a famous building, so was most likely a publicity shot widely distributed at the time and since. If someone has the time, I am fairly sure you'd find it in some books featuring images of the City of London around 1900, or in the books about the building that have been published: "The Baltic Exchange. Being a short history of the Baltic Mercantile and Shipping Exchange from the days of the old coffee house ... Compiled and written by J. A. Findlay. [With plates.], 1927" would be a good place to start. Jim Killock (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain as fair use (or non-free) by default – Let's assume for now that the photo was unpublished till first published between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002. Without proof of earlier publication, transferral to Commons would be risky at this point. Even being possibly still unpublished on 31 December 2002 or after might be also harder to prove. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious claim of own work as the image could be found at the FSU website prior to the upload to Wikipedia. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless evidence of permission can be established. Salavat (talk) 06:40, 20 January 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holbein-tube.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JimKillock (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image was originally deleted under F7c as replaceable non-free content. After discussion on my talk page, I have restored the image and placed it here at FFD for further discussion as the deletion is not clearcut. There is some relevant prior discussions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Re File:Holbein-tube.png image size reduction request, and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Image deletion request on The Ambassadors (Holbein). There is a free image of the skull viewed through the tube (File:Demonstration of Holbein's skull image viewed through a tube.jpg). Any need to identify other objects and alignments in the painting can refer to the painting itself (File:Hans Holbein the Younger - The Ambassadors - Google Art Project.jpg) and use words to convey this. As such, I still feel that WP:NFCC#1 is not met for use in The Ambassadors (Holbein). There is also a non-free usage at Edgar Samuel. All of the relevant information and illustration are available the article about the painting so the use here would not meet WP:NFCC#3 in addiiton to the points above. Whpq (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for relisting.

Re: Any need to identify other objects and alignments in the painting can refer to the painting itself and use words to convey this. I think the point is, that while in theory someone could follow words to understand the composition, or try to reassemble te composition in their head, that is an awful lot of effort for someone. Most people won't manage it, whereas most people looking at a picture, will find it easy to follow that, for instance, the head looks a certain size, and is placed at a certain point, and aligns with certain objects. That makes assessing whether viewing "with a tube" is a realistic or convincing argument rather hard for the average reader. It is after all an artwork and meant to be interpreted and understood visually.

To summarise the prior points, it is proving hard to replicate this image, but it is my intention to provide an equivalent if possible. For instance we don't know yet how much restoration has altered the skull dimensions, shdowing on either side, aspects of the face, jaw and nose. From the pre-restoration image, it is likely prints will be too small (7.5in square) to take a decent photograph from, as the optic would be tiny if in proportion to the picture. From a modern reproduction, Perspex tubes are easy to find but are less good optically than in the 1960s, those I have found cause streaking and blur; I am trying to track down a glass optic but they are only available from industry suppliers.

As I understand the policy, the image meets fair use criteria, but should be kept only if it is "impossible" to recreate. At this point, I don't know whether it is possible, or practical, or impossible, or impractical. Thus I would hope we err on the side of Wikipedia's mission, the dissemination of knowledge, while we ascertain whether it can be reproduced. Jim Killock (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:NFCC#1 (not convinced a free equivalent is impossible to create) or WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of both articles, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 07:14, 25 January 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: No consensus -Fastily 07:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Dre - Fuck Wit Dre Day.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Guerilla In Tha Mist (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Usage in Fuck wit Dre Day (And Everybody's Celebratin') and The Chronic more likely not compliant with WP:NFCC#8 George Ho (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in both articles since there is enough sourced critical commentary in both articles to justify its inclusion in the articles. Aspects (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 17 January 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: delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

User:Nassoons uploaded those five files claimed own work, but I'm unsure if they're actually all own works. They're used on the article Princeton Nassoons, so the user in question is possibly affilated to the subject of this article. The images in questions are all in the same size, but of different quality, and from different times. I would like to copy them to commons, but I have doubts with the copyright. See also WP:MCQ#Files_uploaded_by_User:Nassoons --TheImaCow (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given that there is this uncropped version of the Whitehouse photo, I doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder. With the small resolution of all the images, it is likely they have been downloaded from a web site. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 17 January 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hector Ó hEochagáin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Balloholic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image looks like a screenshot from a television show, and not as claimed, an own work. I thought about converting it to fair use, but as far as I know, the exact source needs to be known to do so.--TheImaCow (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies for fair use as the subject is alive. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 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.