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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel Port Moresby circa 1950.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of PD status; source page appears to be claiming restrictions; tagged with nonsensical and self-contradictory "{PD-author|unknown}". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 16 September 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papua Hotel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Same situation as File:Hotel Port Moresby circa 1950.jpg above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 16 September 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burns Philp POM.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Similar situation as File:Hotel Port Moresby circa 1950.jpg above. Not found on webpage claimed as source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 16 September 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Presidential_Flag_of_Sri-Lanka.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Copyright violation: taken from flagspot which is copyrighted" in Wikimedia Commons, and the evidence indicates that this file is from http://www.president.gov.lk/ This is Taiwania Formosania speaking (Knock knock) 09:08, 16 September 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:4-cuttingedge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Attributed to GFMesstechnik: no evidence of permission. Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:14, 16 September 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; re-templated as ((PD-Hubble)). Diannaa (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:NGC 4866 as imaged by Hubble.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• NASA Source lists the credit for this as European Space Agency,

ESA images aren't PD US Gov as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While ESA may have given the picture out, the picture is from the Hubble Space Telescope. Thus I would say it's PD as actually being the property of NASA. ESA has access to the telescope, but Hubble is owned by the US government. Caffeyw (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The original seems to be at http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/potw1328a/ . When you go to the root home page for that (which is ESA's), http://www.spacetelescope.org/ , at least as of the time of this edit, there is the explicit declaration (bottom left-hand corner) about being free to use. Their full copyright page, http://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright/ , makes only conditions about keeping attribution intact. Thus the image Wikimedia has may need that added in, but no more than that, and deletion is overreaction once the attribution is made correct. BSVulturis (talk) 18:58, 18 September 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original Uniform of Euzone Warrior and his Wife, Year 1900.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Artwork in rear of photo. De Minimis? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 16 September 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nam, majorette.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Film screenshot, see usage in First Love (2010 film)#Cast and characters. January (talk) 12:53, 16 September 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nam, the ugly duckling.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Film screenshot, see usage in First Love (2010 film)#Cast and characters. January (talk) 12:53, 16 September 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. Diannaa (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Chacon Perez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no proof that this is the uploaders "own work" Redsky89 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you suspect it isn't? We don't generally ask uploaders to prove that an image is their own work unless there's reason to doubt it. January (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The metadata says that the photo was taken in 2049. Someone needs to check his camera settings. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 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: Converted to Fair Use. We don't have enough information to definitively determine whether the image is public domain. Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Further information about original publication needed to support PD claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photograph is undated, but as an educated guess. I would say that the photograph in question was most likely taken in the 1880s. Norbert Rillieux died in 1894. This work is in the public domain. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script - I updated the licensing tag on the photo to confirm that this photograph is a public domain work, as per U.S. laws. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a copyright tag which says that this was published before 1923. Would you mind specifying where it was published before 1923 so that the claim can be verified by other people? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph's history is hazy. I have been unable to identify the photographer (I assume it was taken in France, where Rillieux lived in his later years) or its publication history. However, since it was taken prior to Rillieux' death in 1894 and since I have found no evidence that it was registered for American copyright at any time after 1923, it clearly falls under the U.S. laws relating to public domain status of 19th century photography. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. If it was neither published nor registered for copyright, then it falls under the terms in ((PD-US-unpublished)), which it isn't guaranteed to satisfy. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I will change the tag to PD-US-unpublished. Wow, I never realized that a photo from the 1880s could create so much work! :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I verify the claim that the photographer is unknown? If the photographer is known (but for some reason unknown to you), then the requirement is that the photographer must have been dead for at least 70 years, of which we have no evidence. Also, how do I verify the copyright tag's requirement that the image wasn't published before 2003? The image looks like a scan of a book or something, but there is no information about the publication date. If the photo was first published before 2003, then the term is different, depending on the date of publication. For example, if it was first published in 1977 (worst case), then the copyright expires on 1 January 2073. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tag it with "PD-US-Unpublished", because the claim that it was never published before 2003 would very probably be false. It's very easy to show at least that this photograph was used in presumably legitimate publications before then. And it was almost certainly legally published long before then. One example of use is on page 132 of this book published in 1997 by the University of California Press. Granted, the UC Press probably did not know the identity of the photographer and did not obtain the authorization of his successors. UC Press merely mentions (on page xii of the book) that this copy of the photograph was "supplied by the Louisiana State Museum", without any indication of the photographer. That would seem to indicate that UC Press probably considered that this photograph was in the public domain and the LS Museum may not have known the identity of the photographer. I think they would be correct in concluding that it is in the public domain. IMO, two assumptions about a photographic portrait like this from that era are very reasonable, to the point of being acceptable by default, absent any evidence to the contrary, of course. Firstly, photographic portraits like this were made to be published (in the U.S. copyright acception of that word) shortly after their creation, not to be kept secretly in the desk of the photographer until someone stole them and used them illegally. Secondly, it is very unlikely that a professional-looking portrait photograph like this would have been published anonymously. Specific to this photograph, a third reasonable assumption can be derived from the subject's biography and from the caption of the UC Press use, that this photograph was taken in France and presumably published there. Thus, again absent any indication to the contrary, the most likely situation is that this photograph was legitimately published (in the U.S. copyright acception of that word) circa 1880 in France by its known (at the time) photographer (or owner of its copyright, if any). The conclusion would seem to be that the death year of the author is immaterial and the only thing that matters for the determination of its copyright status in the U.S. is its year of publication. If we accept the assumption that it was before 1923, the photograph is in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To verify the photographer is unknown: please do a search on your own and come back with the results. If you can identify the photographer, please share the information. I tried and could not find anything. In any event, the photograph meets one of the key elements that ensures it is public domain: "The death date of its author is not known, and it was created before 1893." Rillieux passed away in 1894. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Asclepias - OK, I restored the earlier tag, as you suggested. Thanks. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:33, 24 September 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazriya Nazim.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyvio Available at http://indianmoviegossipsblog.blogspot.in/2013/07/actress-nazriya-nazim-latest-homely.html Perumalism Chat 07:47, 17 September 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.