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: Image license changed to non-free and includes a valid FUR. -- TLSuda (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agostino Rocca.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The indicated publication is from 1988. We need evidence that it was published before 1976. Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darth007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unsure if own work ViperSnake151  Talk  16:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Derivative work of non-free James Bond image.[1] --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macchi C200.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of pre-1926 publication, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:39, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Havilland Dominie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of pre-1926 publication, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:39, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Havilland Express.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of pre-1926 publication, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 13 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 F8 by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lockheed Ventura.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of pre-1926 publication, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States. No evidence of pre-1944 publication, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United Kingdom. Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Handley Page Hampden.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of pre-1926 publication, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:WilliamHenryEccles.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source link doesn't work, so unverifiable public domain claim. Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Copyrighted in the United States, see ((Not-PD-US-URAA)). Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It might be in the public domain in Poland, but Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. The indicated publication is from the United Kingdom, so it is likely that this is where it was first published, and if it was first published in 1954, then it wasn't in the public domain in the United Kingdom on the URAA date. Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skoropadsky.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the photographer died before 1951. Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dorman o gowan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no evidence that the photographer is unknown. There is also no evidence that this was published before 1926, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There is no evidence that this was taken before 1946. Unless taken before 1946, the photograph is unfree in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia-only permission. Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unfree in USA: Indian post-1940 photograph, see ((Not-PD-US-URAA)). Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Source is dead. No evidence of pre-1941 publication. Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nkvd 01 bw.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not in source given. No evidence that the photographer died before 1951. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brymptonboat.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brymptonboat.gif. Stefan2 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I own this photograph and it was taken by a member of my family.  Giano  22

34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Does it fit the ((PD-US-unpublished)) criteria (not published before 2003, photographer died before 1944)? January (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer died in 1918.  Giano  21:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the photographer is anonymous, the copyright expires 120 years after the photo was created. If you know who the photographer was, then the copyright expires immediately upon revealing the photographer's name. If the photograph was published somewhere before 2003, then other rules apply. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so stupid as to imagine that I am going to out myself by telling you which member of my family took the photograph, then think again. This is ridiculous, the photographer died 96 years ago, and I own the photo.  Giano  21:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "anonymous" is defined at s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 3/Sections 302 and 303: "In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed." So in order to deanonymise a work, it seems that you might need to submit information to the United States Copyright Office. However, if you are the heir of the photographer, you could probably license the photo as ((PD-self)) or something. Just make sure to pick something which doesn't require attribution. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not all in America and we do not all have dates of publication for our old family snap shots. I can assure you that we are not going to have any ghostly ancestors popping up to claim the work. This is totally ridiculous, over the years I have uploaded hundred of photographs from long forgotten, dusty family albums and Wikipedia should be very glad that there are people like me prepared to do so. Instead of discouraging such images, the project should be celebrating the fact that it has editors prepared to share such works.  Giano  14:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is very very old and I believe we can trust Giano if he said the photographer died in 1918. It will not be fair to expect Giano to name the members of his family. Its a very old picture....as you can see by the dress worn by the women in it. pre-WWI or around WWI....and Giano made only 1 edit to this image in 2005. This tells me this picture is close to 100 years old. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:11, 24 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It says that the first publication was during the Treblinka trials which were held in Germany. The source country is therefore presumably not Poland but Germany. No evidence that the photographer died before 1926 or that the photograph was published before 1923, which are requirements for German photos to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source country is occupied Poland, where the photograph was taken in 1942. Poeticbent talk 17:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source country is the country of first publication. There is no evidence that the first publication was in Poland, and the text on the file information page suggests that the country of first publication was Germany. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Treblinka trials were closely followed in Poland where the wittnesses (i.e. Franciszek Ząbecki) summoned to testify in Germany lived. The publications we simultaneous. Poeticbent talk 19:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the exact dates of publication so that it can be verified that they were simultaneous. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the file description suggesting that it was published in Germany during trials. Only the Yad Vashem and Ghetto Fighter's Museums are mentioned right now, neither of them in Germany. WP:Original research. Poeticbent talk 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the first publication was outside Germany. It is the uploader's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence of the country of first publication. Otherwise, we have to assume a worst case scenario, meaning publication in Germany only. Also, ((PD-Polish)) requires the uploader to specify where a photograph was published so that other people can verify whether it had a copyright notice in that publication or not. The uploader has not done so. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 16 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 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:LocationBoudh.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of pre-1941 publication. Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 13 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 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Insufficient source to determine copyright status. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 13 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 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liaqat-ali2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Insufficient source to determine copyright status. Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 13 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:EuropeanSquare1932Kiev.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the photographer died before 1951. Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No evidence that he didn't die before 1951. Old photograph published in the Soviet Union, no harm in keeping it. DDima 19:52, 14 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bowood House 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of the public domain claim provided. Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This building was demolished in 1959. The photograph is clearly very old and out of copyright. Even if it were not so old as to be out of copyright, it would still be eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article as it is the only photograph available to illustrate the subject. It's not possible to take another photograph.  Giano  22:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of photos of buildings which were demolished in 1959 are still copyrighted. If you are claiming that the copyright to this particular photograph has expired, then please provide evidence of this. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just take the time to read what is written when the picture was uploaded: "Bowood House Wiltshire. This image was found on this site [2] of Wiltshire County Council - where the age of the image is dated at 1905. Therefore as this image is 102 years old.  Giano  22:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of images of that age are copyrighted. In particular, many photographs of that age are copyrighted by virtue of being unpublished. See for example ((PD-US-unpublished)) for old recently published photographs. There is no evidence that the image meets the age requirements in that tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then go and take another new photograph of this building to illustrate the page - do you have a tardis?  Giano  22:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the 1905 date the image was likely included in the feature on the building in that year's Country Life - does anyone have access to verify? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 14 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 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamason and Crew.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the photographer is unknown. Unfree in USA per ((Not-PD-US-URAA)). Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • De minimis non curat lex. Additionally, the photo was taken in the UK (not the USA). Furthermore, I scanned this photo from a book (168 Jump Into Hell) and I can assure you there is not mention of who the photographer was. Therefore, the photographer is unknown. Spy007au (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the description page notes that it dates from 1944 at the earliest, so at best it's not public domain in the UK until 1 January 2015 (the copyright term expires on 1 January the year after 70 years have passed). After that date we still have the URAA problem, WP's servers are in the US so even non-US images need to be PD in the US to be considered PD for WP purposes (see WP:Non-US copyrights). January (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, De minimis non curat lex. Spy007au (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not old enough to be in the public domain, that's not a "trifle". January (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to avoid this, thinking that common sense would prevail. However, I have undertaken further research and make the following comments.

When was the photograph taken? The AVRO Lancaster (LM575) shown in the photo was delivered in early 1944 (probably February 1944) and was shot down over France on 8 June 1944. Therefore, the photo is 70 years-old this year (between February & 8 June). Given that the custom during WWII was for crews to have their group photo taken in front of their newly delivered plane, it is likely the date is closer to February than 8 June, but that’s neither here nor there.

Where was the photograph created? Squadron Leader Phil Lamason and his crew were posted to No. 15 Squadron RAF that was stationed and operated out of Southern England. Therefore, as we already know, the photograph was created in England.

Who took the photograph? The answer to this question is unknown. The most likely scenario was probably another passing airman or ground crew member who was politely asked to take the photograph of the crew standing in front of their aircraft. However, there is a very slight chance that the photo was taken by the United Kingdom Government, in which case the image would already be allowable in the public domain.

Who owned the photograph? The subject photo was scanned from a book titled, 168 Jump into Hell by Arthur Kinnis and Booker Stanley published in 1999 by Victoria BC (Canada). As background information, the book is about 168 Allied airmen who were shot down over France and Belgium during 1944 and subsequently all ended up at Buchenwald Concentration Camp for 2 months in late 1944. The book is a collection of short stories from many of the airmen who were at Buchenwald and details their recollection of the events. Lamason provided his story and features heavily in the book.

Point number 1. Of the seven man crew in the photo, two were sent to Buchenwald; Lamason and Flying Officer Ken Chapman. In the book, Lamason stated that when he arrived at Buchenwald, the only person he knew was Chapman. Therefore, the photo must have been owned by either Lamason or Chapman. However, Chapman was not a contributor to the book. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Lamason owned the photo and he allowed its use for publication in the book.

Point number 2. I met Phil Lamason on 6 November 2011, in Wellington NZ, for the premiere showing of the documentary film, Lost Airmen of Buchenwald. I was invited to the after-show party and spoke to Phil’s son (John) for well over an hour. Of the over 100’s of questions I asked John, he confirmed the photo belonged to his father.

Point number 3. The documentary film mentioned above was produced and directed by Mike Dorsey, who I also met in Wellington and regularly correspond with. I have an email from Mike where he attaches the subject photograph. The contents of the email will confirm beyond reasonable doubt that Phil Lamason owned the photo. If you like, I will forward that email to you.

Conclusion, the photograph/image was owned by Phil Lamason.

Would Lamason want his photograph reproduced? Sadly, Phil Lamason passed away on 19 May 2012, so we cannot ask him. However, it is easy to establish his intent. In addition to Lamason allowing the use of the subject photo for a book, there are two other images of him lodged with the Australian War Memorial. Both are free of Copyright and in the public domain. Interestingly, Phil Lamason is the donor of one of the images.

See: [3]

And: [4]

Both these images appear on Lamason’s Wikipedia article. The image of Lamason and Chapman playing chess is interesting insofar the photo was taken in France and after the subject image was created (the Lancaster had been shot down). In the French photo, the author is also unknown. Therefore, any reasonable person would conclude that Lamason would have allowed the use of the subject photo in the public domain, had he still been alive.

Conclusion: We have a 70 year-old image/photograph that was created in ENGLAND by an unknown person, but was owned by a (now dead) NEW ZEALANDER, who gave permission for its use in a book that was published in CANADA with one directly related photo that is free of copyright in AUSTRALIA and FRANCE... But because this image sits in a server located in the UNITED STATES, it may not comply with copyright law there?

In this instance, this is exactly why the law is not interested in trifles! Spy007au (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, in an endeavour to move forward, why not use this template?

This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_January_13 true

To the uploader: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Template:Non-free use rationale 2 may be helpful for stating the rationale. To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template. If this tag does not accurately describe this image, please replace it with an appropriate one.

You would need a valid fair use rationale to use it with that template. WP:NFCC#1 would be tricky since there is a free image of Lamason. January (talk) 11:17, 19 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 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Players cigarette card of Mills and Paul on Tandem - "Cycling" .png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unfree in USA: not published before 1926. Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 13 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 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mundesley-Railway-Station.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unfree in the United States: not published before 1926. Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 13 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 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Sherwood-Kelly.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the photographer is unknown, which is a condition for public domain status in the United Kingdom. No evidence of pre-1926 publication, which is a condition for public domain status in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 17:40, 13 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: Kept.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belvoir house1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence supporting the PD claim has been provided. Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the PD claim, you will note that it is used to illustrate Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain. It doesn't exist any more (knocked down 1961), so no free file can be found. The image is dated circa 1900". At the very least it qualifies for fair use. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• UK government photo, and Crown copyright is long expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The building was demolished in February 1961, more than 50 years ago, and hence Crown Copyright has indeed expired. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 31 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: Kept might not be PD in US but FUR added to cover this. Nthep (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuthalltemple1906.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence supporting the PD claim has been provided. Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This building was demolished in 1929 after years of neglect. The photograph was taken when the building was still in a very good state of repair so is clearly circa 1909. Even if the photograph were not so old as to be out of copyright, it would still be eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article as it is the only photograph available to illustrate the subject. It's not possible to take another photograph.  Giano  22:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That text does not contain any information about the copyright status of the image. ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) requires evidence of publication before 1923, but you have not provided such evidence. ((PD-UK-unknown)) requires evidence that the photographer is unknown, but you have likewise not provided such evidence. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are being completely ridiculous. If you are so clever I suggest you go out with your camera and take a new photograph of this demolished building to illustrate the article.  Giano  22:22, 13 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 - source was given. FUR added as file not PD in US. Nthep (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haltoun House.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no source. Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a source. There is no requirement that sources be online. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 30 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.