The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 as F4 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SoilOrderclassify.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Partial match for -

http://learn.forestbioenergy.net/learning-modules/module-1/unit-2/25-large.png - Textbook image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ashfaq Ahmed Zaviapng.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• http://archive.org/details/Zavia-by-baba.Ashfaq-ahmed dead source. More information is needed to support a PD claim for this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChryslerInnerManualleverSchematic.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Attributed to Jerry Rosenbluth - Does the fact that it was used as evidence make it public record and thus free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 as G5 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Star Aditya.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If the source is "Indian Bollybood Industry", then it seems dubious that the file is free. Fram (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 as G5 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aditya Raj.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If the source is "Indian Bollybood Industry", then it seems dubious that the file is free. Fram (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 as F3 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:140-New-Montgomery-Eagles.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Sources listed say NC. Would be F11 , but it was contested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now marked File:140-New-Montgomery-Eagles.jpg correctly as CC-BY-NC; this copy should be deleted. New copy with CC-BY-SA license has been uploaded to File:Eagles-on-Top-of-Pac-Bell-Building-643px.jpg. Photographer and I both dislike Wikipedia's stance for requiring SA over NC, but photographer has agreed to make an exception in this case. Photographer's release statement has been forward to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please assist with deletion of old copy (admin privilege required). Thank you. Startswithj (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Keep as amended. Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brajkovic EN.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Serbian Wikipedia no longer has the source file, so the claimed permission cannot be easily verified. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Serbian Wikipedia link was incorrect, it should have been sr:Датотека:Brajkovic.JPG (now fixed). January (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coalition Against Wildlife Trade.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I can't find any indication the base map is PD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Display of Kelly armour at Old Melbourne Gaol.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I had problems accessing the given source, meaning that the claimed permission could not be verified. Whilst it's plausible this image might be under an Australian style Open Government scheme, this would need confirmation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jul21 suspects cctv.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As far as I aware British CCTV footage was not PD. The owner would be in effect be the operator of system ( which is either the Met, TfL or the Bus company concerned.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:W H Smith.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that this is in the public domain, but provides no evidence of this. He claims that it was published before 1923 and that the photographer died before 1943, but no evidence has been provided that this is correct. Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilson Barret.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that this is in the public domain, but provides no evidence of this. He claims that it was published before 1923 and that the author is unknown, but provides no evidence of this. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The sultan (1973) original caricature c1879 - british goverment forcing the sultan for reforms.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Apparently created in 1879, but there is no evidence that this was published before 1979, when it was published in an unspecified book. If it was first published in 1979, and if the book carried a copyright notice, then the copyright expires on 1 January 2048 in the United States, per Commons:COM:HIRTLE. Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Priscilla Studd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that the photographer died before 1943, but no evidence of this has been provided. It is a photograph of a person who died in 1929, and lots of photographers who were alive during her lifetime were still alive as of 1943. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viscount Sandon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that the photographer died before 1943, but no evidence of this has been provided. It is a photograph of a person who died in 1900, and lots of photographers who were alive during his lifetime were still alive as of 1943. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand public domain images to be any image published before 1923. Is this incorrect? -- John Reaves 15:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no information about the publication history of the image, so we do not know when it was first published. For example, family photos are usually not published, even if they may have been taken by a professional photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:R A Cross.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that the photographer died before 1943, but no evidence of this has been provided. It is a photograph of a person who died in 1914, and lots of photographers who were alive during his lifetime were still alive as of 1943. Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 as F4 by John Reaves (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spencer Horatio Walpole.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that the photographer died before 1943, but no evidence of this has been provided. It is a photograph of a person who died in 1898, and lots of photographers who were alive during his lifetime were still alive as of 1943. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand public domain images to be any image published before 1923. Is this incorrect? -- John Reaves 15:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no information about the publication history of the image, so we do not know when it was first published. For example, family photos are usually not published, even if they may have been taken by a professional photographer. See ((PD-US-unpublished)) for the copyright rules for unpublished photographs. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found a PD image at Commons to replace this one with. -- John Reaves 16:08, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 as F4 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Marshman.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that the person who made this drawing died before 1943, but we have no evidence of this. It is a drawing of a person who died in 1837, so if the drawing was made during the lifetime of the depicted person, then it is safe to assume that the artist died before 1943, but we don't know whether it is a contemporary drawing or not. Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is is not most likely that this was done during the subjects lifetime? -- John Reaves 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, but there are sometimes exceptions. For example, all currently known depictions of Jesus of Nazareth were made after his death. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a scan from an 1881 encyclopedia entry, our current version appears to be derived from this. Would replacing it with this version be acceptable? -- John Reaves 16:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • It would certianly establish that it's out of copyright! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:36, 9 January 2014 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 as F4 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Arthur Roebuck.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Drawing, without any indication of its age. If it was made during the lifetime of the depicted person, then it is probably in the public domain, but it isn't known whether it is a contemporary drawing or not. Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and a few other images you have listed here are clearly done by the same artist. It seems safe to assume that they were done during the lifetime of the subjects. -- John Reaves 16:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, see m:Avoid copyright paranoia. -- John Reaves 17:40, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamesmaxton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that the photographer is unknown, but no evidence has been provided that this is the case. There is also no evidence that it was published before 1926, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Kept: Now has appropriate source for copyright status. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK1997a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that "Ibibliio photos are public domain unless otherwise specified." There is however no evidence that this statement is correct. Furthermore, it says that the website is maintained by Charles Chan, but the photograph was contributed to the website by Ken Mentz. No evidence that Chan had permission to relinquish Mentz's copyright to the photograph. Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • All software, documentation, research data, and other materials (Materials) submitted for installation on the ibiblio.org Internet Server will be deemed in the public domain, except for any express restrictions included in such Materials by the submitting party."

• From http://www.ibiblio.org/share/#read-and-heed -- John Reaves 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. I couldn't find that page. Then it might be enough to add a link to that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cardinal Granito Pignatelli di Belmonte.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User:John Reaves claims that the painter died before 1913, but this is a painting of a person who died in 1948, and he looks old, so the painting would have to have been made at old age. Also, unless the painter died before the late 1930s, the painting is ((Not-PD-US-URAA)). Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This one I see. I had meant to look into the copyright status of Vatican commissioned works and forgot to. It appears that copyright would be applied even if I could prove it was a work from the Vatican. -- John Reaves 15:47, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neda Agha-Soltan & her fiance Caspian Makan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a private family photo- unlikely to have been created by the uploader. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:HR4437.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a close case, but I think the two sentences of text and the radio station's logo make the billboard non-free, and this image therefore would be a non-free derivative work. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:41, 19 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 - copyrighted sculpture, two images in tif on image page; cannot fair use both of them.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Hampton The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations' Millennium General Assembly.tif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I think it is (or could be) OK to use this file on English Wikipedia (given WP:NFCI), but this was uploaded with the ((self)) tag, and then flagged with ((Copy to Commons)). It's a photograph of a sculpture that was created by someone other than the photographer/uploader (EDIT: and this is included in the file's description). If the ((self)) tag is suitable for the photograph, then my understanding is that this should be in addition to some tag for the sculpture itself – which is what brings me here. My question is whether the sculpture is still protected by copyright: it was created between 1950 and 1964, when the artist died. I think ((Non-free 3D art)) is a more suitable tag, but we are missing certain information (e.g.. the original copyright date); given that the work was a posthumous discovery I am not sure if or how it was actually "published." This would also rule out moving the file to Commons. I'm not sure if the sculpture instead would fall under one of the PD-Art tags but this sculpture, and the death of its creator, are too recent for those. Gyrofrog (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• ((PD-Art)) can't be used for 3D artworks. Not an issue anyway since we have the photographer's permission. Apparently donated to the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 1970, so possibly published at that time. No idea if it contained a copyright notice. Why does the TIF file have two pages? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe someone from Wikipedia:Smithsonian can weigh in. I'll leave them a note. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much for your patience! Per @Gyrofrog:'s request, I spoke with colleagues in the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Your prior analysis is correct: this sculpture is recent enough that the work itself is not considered in the public domain, and should therefore not be moved to Commons. The works of art in the Smithsonian American Art Museums' collections can be considered like those in other U.S. museums: the artists or their estates should be assumed to hold copyright, unless it has expired or was explicitly given up. Hope that helps. --Sarasays (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.