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 TLSuda (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ronnie Aldrich 1969.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "It's not known whether the photo was taken in the UK, since he mainly worked there. The photo is in the PD in the US but may not be in the UK and other countries-see below." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that files which were in the US public domain but possibly not in the PD elsewhere were able to be used here. Please delete. We hope (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Identical photo of Aldrich for his Ronnie Aldrich and His Two Pianos on London Records.

• The US album on London.

• the UK album on Decca.

• There are also some differences in the cuts on the two albums. The London album was sold in the US-the Decca album in the UK. The photo is from London Records. We hope (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep The English Wikipedia doesn't require files to be free in both the country of origin and the US. See "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." (emphasis mine) at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. If Aldrich and his work were published/publicized in the US through London, than it follows that this image was published in the US. It's good enough for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The copyright tag requires that the photo was first published in the United States (or published there within 30 days after it was first published, or taken by a US citizen residing in the United States). If it may be from the United Kingdom, then why do you believe that it was first published in the United States? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searches turned up the identical copy shown at the link which was published by London Records in the US, the same as this photo. A tineye search using this photo turned up no results. We'll never know where the shutter was snapped--the evidence we have is that London in the US published the photo in the US to promote this artist in the US. We hope (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bringing up the camera location? It has nothing to do with the source country, which is the country of first publication. Why do you think that it was first published in the United States? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the available evidence regarding the photo being published in the US. What have you to suggest that it was first published in the UK? We hope (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You added a tag to the file information page where you suggest that the source country may be the United Kingdom. Since the United Kingdom only is the source country if the image was first published there, the tag implies that you think that it was first published there. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not known whether the photo was taken in the UK, since he mainly worked there. Ronnie Aldrich worked primarily in the UK; as a result, this record company promotional photo may have been taken there. Because it's not known where the photo was taken, while it is in the public domain in the United States, it may not be in the UK and other countries." The exact words from the file description--taken was used, not published. It's possible for the photo to have been taken in the UK but not published there. We hope (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the country where the photo was taken is not relevant for copyright. The country where the photo was first published is relevant to determine its copyright status in the US. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All available information points to the US. When I upload, I try to list anything that might apply to the status of a photo, which is why the stress on where it may have been taken on the file's page. We hope (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the location where the photo was taken does not "apply to the [copyright] status of [the] photo". The sentence that reads "Because it's not known where the photo was taken [...] it may not be [in the public domain] in the UK and other countries" is false. One might perhaps bring up that the photo may have been taken in the UK as some sort of hint aimed at concluding that it may have been first published in the UK and thus that it may not be in the public domain in the US. In its present state, the description page is pointing in two conflicting directions at the same time. Only one path can be retained. Either the US is considered the source country, and then the tag "do not copy to Commons" should be removed, or the UK is considered the source country, and then the photo is not in the public domain in the US and it should be deleted from Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asclepias -based on the available information, there was no UK publication of the photo. I would appreciate your suggestions as to how to resolve this, and the other files that I listed similarly. I felt I was being less than truthful by not mentioning what I did. We hope (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the do not copy tag and am presently trying to rectify the other files based on the conversation here. We hope (talk) 21:53, 18 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luigina Bissoli.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not created prior to 1976, so PD-Italy may not be applicable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It would not be applicable if we took URAA as a rule that we must follow. Must we? Commons decided not. Thus if we do then perhaps move to Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marincello1968.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "I see no evidence that Sportsfan919 is the copyright holder for either picture, so I'm removing the bot-added "ready for move to Commons" tag. Gorthian (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)"Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:06, 15 July 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: Withdrawn. TLSuda (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khrushchev's Grave 1973.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FoP in Russia- see c:Template:NoFoP-Russia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And? The English Wikipedia doesn't require files to be free in both the country of origin and the US. See "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." (emphasis mine) at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the photographer and uploader I was pleased to see that this file will be eligible for the Commons in October, see [1] as is the case for thousands of other images on the Russian Wikipedia[2]. In the meantime, it is fully acceptable here for the reason given by Crisco. Graham Colm (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Can someone write a ((FoP-Russia)) or udpate the commons template? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not necessary, as we're not hosting on Commons, and Wikipedia doesn't require locally-hosted images to be free in their country of origin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Hobbit film series logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not sure this is purely a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:14, 15 July 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: Withdrawn'''TLSuda (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

File:Tsar Nicholas II Family Remains.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FoP in Russia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said above, that's a reason for deletion at Commons, not here. US FOP includes exteriors and interiors of architectural works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the photographer and uploader I was pleased to see that this file will be eligible for the Commons in October, see [3] as is the case for thousands of other images on the Russian Wikipedia[4]. In the meantime, it is fully acceptable here for the reason given by Crisco. Graham Colm (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn - (See previous case of a similar nature)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheikh Abdullah Al-Jaber Abdullah II Al-Sabah bearing the forefront of his Cavalry in Battle of Regaei (1928).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is an old photo, so I don't see how this could possibly be a self image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:21, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Tagged as PD-BritishGov, someone later claimed this would have uRAA issues at commons despite what the template says. So... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We have e-mail confirmation from OPSI/HMSO that expired UK Crown Copyright material is free anywhere in the world [5], so if the PD-BritishGov tag is not in doubt there is no problem with this image. January (talk) 20:47, 15 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bocconi-velodromo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FoP in Italy, uploader claims this doesn't matter. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, US FOP is sufficient for local upload. See ((FoP-USonly)) and WP:Non-US copyrights — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There is a concern expressed in the history of the file that it is not own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:36, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted as F9 by January (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elfrid Payton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• EXIF: "AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley" Eeekster (talk) 00:50, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:EdwardADiana.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:38, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marine Corps Commandant Presenting Captain William McMillan Distinguished International Shooter Badge, May 1963.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source site listed claims "© Copyright Matthew S. McMillan All Rights Reserved" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boars Head.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "for use with xyz article", no permission from photographer, no website link. Deadstar (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burj1217.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is a dispute at commons about FoP in UAE/Dubai, also this appears to be a photo of the work concerned under construction and thus not a 'completed work'. Opinions needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:RIVERSIDE MUCH ADO 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Although our uploader claims to have created this poster, it is unlikely that he owns the copyright. The Riverside Company was a well established organization and would certainly have bought the copyright under a Work for hire agreement." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here where uploader explains the situation with the posters he's uploaded. There are a lot of other uploads of his that are requested to be moved to Commons, which should likely have some type of OTRS permission on it - would the conversation from this archive suffice? @Calliopejen1: do you remember this? thanks Deadstar (talk) 12:56, 15 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:GenLes Scouts de Djibouti.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This appears to be a scouting logo. (No dispute about the uploader creating this specific media, the concern is about the underlying design.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-it's absolutely not a Scouting image, the details are intentionally wrong and any Scout would see at first glance that is is not real, but something I designed as a placeholder image, cobbled from other ideas. In fact we can't verify what the actual image is supposed to look like, that's why it's a placeholder and not used in any articles. See also File:WikiProject Scouting fleur-de-lis dark.svg created by me, used in hundreds of articles over several language wikis, a fleur-de-lis positioned on a trefoil, in the original Scouting colors chosen by Lord Baden-Powell, to be used as a non-trademark Scouting logo where questions of legality are involved. These were intentionally made so we would not run afoul of any copyrights. In addition, any Scout organization can take those same elements and design their own emblem for their own use-there are six major world organizations and over 200 independent small organizations, and no single group has or can claim copyright on all of the elements.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:38, 16 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:GenScouting in Turkmenistan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a Scouting logo ( Only the design is being disputed, Uploader could have created this specfic media.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-despite the claim, it's absolutely not a Scouting logo, the details are intentionally wrong and any Scout would see at first glance that is is not real, but something I designed as a placeholder image, cobbled from other ideas. In fact we can't verify what the actual image is supposed to look like, that's why it's a placeholder and not used in any articles. Nominator admittedly knows this already yet finds and puts them up for deletion anyway. See also File:WikiProject Scouting fleur-de-lis dark.svg created by me, used in hundreds of articles over several language wikis, a fleur-de-lis positioned on a trefoil, in the original Scouting colors chosen by Lord Baden-Powell, to be used as a non-trademark Scouting logo where questions of legality are involved. These were intentionally made so we would not run afoul of any copyrights. In addition, any Scout organization can take those same elements and design their own emblem for their own use-there are six major world organizations and over 200 independent small organizations, and no single group has or can claim copyright on all of the elements. Yawn.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:40, 16 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snowfall9.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It wasn't clear if ROHAN MOZUMDAR was the uploader, annd the image was tagged "Permission from "ROHAN MOZUMDAR" needed", Willing to assume good faith, if this IS in fact a self image (and should be Commons in that instance.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air Crash Plaque.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's disputed on the media description page if this plaque is covered by UK FoP, The sign certainly contains structural elements, and being a cast is a work of artistic craftsmanship as opposed to being a straight 2D picture/mural. Opinions needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph was taken by myself and therefore the copyright of the image belongs to me. I have donated the image and its copyright to Wikipedia. If you are suggesting that the copyright of the artist who created the memorial has been infringed, then basically any image on Wikipedia depicting a public memorial would also be an infringement of copyright.(A. Carty (talk) 18:39, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural at San Fernando Gardens.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a mural, the ((Do not move to Commons)) wrongly claims this is free in the United States. I'm not so sure it is. Claimed as self (presumably for the photo) but no authorship for the mural (a 2d work) is given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:36, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gloster E1-44.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is tagged PD-British Gov, but it was claimed on the media page that this had a URAA issue (despite what the license claims) So... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Claimed to be copyright in the UK, My understanding was that WMF did not recognise 'sweat of brow' so.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ((PD-Art)) only applies to photographs of two-dimensional works where no three-dimensional elements are visible, comparison to File:Banqueting House 802.jpg which shows the same artwork indicates that this photo includes three-dimensional elements. January (talk) 21:09, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anton Eiselsberg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "© Copyright by Christian Brandstätter Verlag, Vienna. " at source given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:11, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruska-microscope-sketch.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's not clear from the information provided why this qualifies as PD-US. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:16, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stormningen av Köpenhamn 11 feb. 1659.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Photographic reproduction created in Sweden, where such photos are not copyright-free." It was however my understanding that WMF did not recognise 'sweat of brow' in such instances. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 15 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riga supermarket roof collapse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed that "(no freedom of panorama in Latvia)", but this image is not of a work of art. Opinions needed because if free this should be Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - US FOP allows buildings, and thus local hosting is acceptable. See WP:Non-US copyrights. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I would say that as this doesn't show anything 'artistic', (it's effectviely 'reporting news or current evennts' the FoP concern whilst valid is not necessarily relevant. Shame there isn't a way to say Possibly free image! :) )Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really think "artistic" comes into consideration when considering FOP. Works of architecture (rather, "buildings"), under US copyright law, are defined as "... structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions." (see Commons:FOP#United_States) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted as F8 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danielle C. Gray.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The categorisation of this as a US Gov image is challanged on the media description page "not commons property. Belongs to individual". Either that statement or the license is incorrect. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That statement is borderline vandalism from a SPA (diff). Released on Flickr with an acceptable license, so even if this weren't a USDA image (which it is) this would be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dave Clark Five Movie 1965.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "The film was done and first screened in the UK with the title "Catch Us If You Can". It was released in the US a bit later with the title "Having A Wild Weekend". There is a possiblility of UK copyright. See below" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And can you show that it was first published in the UK more than 30 days before its US publication (the time required for UK copyright to take precedence in US copyright law)? We hope is playing it safe. That's all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personaly, going by what was on the file page it's a publicity still, (and thus unlikley to have a UK publication as you mention). However I am trying to clear a backlog of 'grey' images with respect to can or can't Commons Transfer, and hence the referal here on a precautionary basis. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep assuming it is not disputed that the image is PD in the US. The UK copyright is only an issue on Commons which requires images to be free in the source country, this project only requires images to be free in the US. January (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK-I did some searching and was able to find a copy of the US pressbook for the film which I archived. This page has what WB called special publicity stills on it, and this photo is one of them. You see a copy of this photo at mid right. Other copies of the photos on the page were released in the same format--Warner Bros--printed in USA--Clark & Ferris photo, headshots of group photo front photo back. Also located a photo from Catch Us If You Can (film's UK title) auction photo. They're sitting on the same thing and in the same clothing, but their poses are different. There's also no large building behind them in the UK photo as there is in the one published in the US. Based on this evidence, the photo was not released in the UK and was released in the US with no copyright marks. My reason for tagging this as don't move to Commons was that I felt it wasn't truthful not to mention the information about the UK and US releases of the film. I am removing the don't move information from the file. We hope (talk) 02:46, 19 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dudley Moore Peter Cook Kraft Music Hall.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• PAge claims "The program was taped in London for a US television show. Because of that, there may be copyright issues outside of the US-see below." , However this does this look very like a publicity still. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personaly, going by what was on the file page it's a publicity still, (and thus unlikley to have a UK publication as you mention). However I am trying to clear a backlog of 'grey' images with respect to can or can't Commons Transfer, and hence the referal here on a precautionary basis. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unless there's any doubt that the image is PD in the US. The image is ineligible for Commons if it was first published in the UK since Commons requires that images are PD in the source country, but English Wikipedia has no such requirement so it's fine here. January (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was issued by NBC-TV to promote the program. I have no evidence that these Kraft Music Hall episodes ever aired outside of the US; they were only taped there for US broadcast. I felt I wasn't being honest not to discuss the fact that they were taped in the UK. On the basis of this conversation, I have removed the do not copy from the file. We hope (talk) 22:53, 18 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marty Feldman 1972.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The media page claims "The program was taped in London for a US television show. Because of that, there may be copyright issues outside of the US-see below.". However, this looks like a Publicity still. It's not clear if the ABC TV mentioned is the US one , or the British (and ex ITV region). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABC New York advertising a program scheduled in Eastern Standard Time, that looks quite certain that it's ABC in the US, not in the UK. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unless there's any doubt that the image is PD in the US. The image is ineligible for Commons if it was first published in the UK since Commons requires that images are PD in the source country, but English Wikipedia has no such requirement so it's fine here. January (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the photograph was first published in the U.S., it's fine for both Commons and Wikipedia. If it was first published in the U.K., its copyright was restored in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as the available evidence suggests that the first publication occurred in the United States and no evidence is found that it was first published elsewhere and is copyrighted in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was released by ABC-TV in the US to promote the program. Have done various photo searches, including tineye, and this is the only copy of the photo that was located. Not finding any evidence of publication of the photo other than this ABC-TV one. I mentioned that the program was done in the UK because I felt it wasn't honest not to. I have removed the do not move information from the file. We hope (talk) 03:15, 19 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:BT diners.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Unclear copyright status. Missing template indicating image not self made. Deadstar (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:BT carriageD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Unclear copyright status. Missing template indicating image not self made. Deadstar (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:BT train.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Unclear copyright status. Missing template indicating image not self made. Deadstar (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:50, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Absent a WP:ORTS ticket given uploaders other uploads this is not a good to go to commons." - Is there a history here I'm missing? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:53, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scott20000live.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged - "Absent a WP:ORTS ticket given uploaders other uploads this is not a good to go to commons." on media page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:54, 15 July 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: Withdrawn. TLSuda (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo from The Great Ziegfeld 1936.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged, "The book was published in the US and the UK; there is a possiblility of UK copyright. See below" . However there's no evidence of a simultaneous publication presented, it boils down to how was first, I think... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very unlikely that a book by an American writer (Gilbert Seldes) was published in the UK more than 30 days before the US. This one's actually probably safe to upload to Commons, as with the first publication being American (and the film being American) we don't really need to care about the UK copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good for commons (pending on renewals check)?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Already checked for renewals and registration, as documented on the file page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, and Move to Commons - Thank you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 15 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Internationale orchestral arrangement.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Licensing conflict, claimed as PD release, but also stated as non-free beyond the US. (Both can't be correct.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• [6] shows that the file is under public domain. Nonetheless, the music itself's copyright is not expired in France (the origin) until October 2017. Hence, it cannot be moved to Commons. --Billytanghh (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Billytanghh. The music is PD-1923 in the US and the recent arrangement is PD-author. The distinction should be made clearly in the description page, so readers don't need to search or ask the same question. Also, the template "do not move to Commons" could use a parameter to explain that the music is not PD in the source country. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:10, 19 July 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: Delete; deleted as F9 by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unfinished portrait of FDR cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Can't be self, derivative work from a Non-free file. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as a clear copyvio. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:BT jimi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Unclear copyright status. Missing template indicating image not self made. Deadstar (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:38, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:G R-Heath Taylor Horse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• " Unclear copyright status considering credited via http://www.ladybugstallion.com/?id=9&story=81 (04.2009, even published after local upload) by "Photo Credit: Dustin Orona Photography" = http://www.ladybugstallion.com/newsfiles/photos/G.R.Carter.jpg (seems to be the original spot/frame, but no exif) + similar copyvio/doubtful copyright claim actions by uploader, accumulated in (e.g.) commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:G R-Jess Zoomin-2.jpg. --Gunnex (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC) " Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Not self made. License incorrect. Deadstar (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)" , However, the uploader's name matches the details, and the subject of the image. Work for hire to the subject of the image? Hmm. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:49, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:50000 IRR obverse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• PD_Iran, but claimed as Non-free outside the US. The templates can't both be right. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:57, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:50000 IRR reverse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged as PD-Iran, but also claimed to be non-free outside the US. Both templates cannot be correct. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue about this being "non-free outside the US" was true at the time of upload, in 2009; assuming the 1980 publication year is correct, this would have been free from 2011 at the latest. No idea what the US copyright is, so not !voting keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US as I understood has no copyright arrangement with Iran, so PD in US ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but see Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?. As the Iranian copyright term has expired, this is not protected by copyright anywhere in the world (unless the author was a citizen or resident of a country other than Iran when the image was created). --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claimed to PD-US, but this isn't Pre 1923 (or a US image). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to NARA, "Access Restriction(s): Unrestricted; Use Restriction(s): Unrestricted". There isn't a template for "Public domain in the United States by virtue of being seized by the federal government during wartime" so I went with PD-US. —howcheng {chat} 16:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that "Public domain in the United States by virtue of being seized by the federal government during wartime" requires that the copyright holder in Germany as of 1 January 1996 was a government. The copyright holder to German photographs is usually the photographer or the photographer's heirs, even if it was a work for hire. Why do you think that the copyright in Germany would be held by a government instead of the photographer or his heirs as of 1 January 1996? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Ok, section 104A(a)(2) of the Copyright Act seems to make clear, a contrario, that copyrights were created/restored for all non-government works that had been thus seized. So, does that mean that since 1996 that applies to all such works in that situation, including to the photos by Heinrich Hoffmann, contrary to what some users seem to believe? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Why can it not be on Commons? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under German copyright law, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer. The archives.gov website does not say who the photographer is, but he may have been named in whatever publication in which the image was first published (if published somewhere). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 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: Keep. TLSuda (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larry E. Haines (2008).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Deleted at commons - "(Copyright violation: http://tineye.com/search/9b5396f9035d850f8fca47d267746c1ca6aaa1cd/?sort=size&order=desc) " Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't tell why it was deleted at commons, but I took this picture of Senator Haines in early January of 2008 while he was attending a joint session of the Maryland legislature. (note: I have taken the pictures of and uploaded at least 100 images of Maryland legislators over the last several years)«Marylandstater» ^«reply» 15:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Is Commons refering to the right image?. If you took it yourself then I'm inclined to withdraw if the Commons concern can be figured out.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Commons discussion - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=126351912&oldid=126349283

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:39, 16 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Considering File:Jinnahavenuenight.png (part) = copyvio via http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=17438747&postcount=290 (2008 by KB) = http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/kbboy101/ISLAMABAD/qsd.jpg (by "Fawad Hussain (kbboy101)", last modified: 2007)" on media page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Testing SVG upload.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused, test image,. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:12, 15 July 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Topol M 2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyvio - see C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topol M SS-27.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The uploader has admitted that his statement on the description page "I MastermindPrime created this work entirely by myself" is not true, there, where he wrote "This rare image was given to me by my friend from Russia who was working as a state media photographer." Even if that last statement is true, the fact that the uploader was given a copy of the image doesn't mean that he acquired the copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:35, 16 July 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.