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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Phoebe.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source and tagged with the flagrantly false ((No rights reserved)). The image is highly likely to be ((PD-UKGov)), but a source for it would need to be established in order to confirm that. B (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shrimp and SEM CL.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Evidence that the source images are public domain? B (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bredakolff2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Images are from the Dutch National Archive and the description page claims that they permit reuse as long as the source is credited and the image is not used in a "misleading" way. But according to Google Translate, the Dutch Wikipedia deleted their template for images from the National Archive because those images had a non-commercial restriction, if I'm understanding the concern correctly. (Google translate says, "(no longer used (non-commercial, although it seems to have been supplied in very limited part a free license))") B (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eo newsletter 50 1986.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image description page says "Scanned image of the cover of the Education Otherwise newsletter 50th issue December 1986 Public Domain. Explicitly states that material may be reproduced." What exactly is the license given? "You may reproduce" != "you may modify, reproduce, sell, etc" B (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is from 1986. There is no licence as we would know it today. It was placed in the Public Domain so that it could be reproduced as and when required as stated:

"The copyright holder of this file has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain. However, as a courtesy, a link back to Education Otherwise would be appreciated."

Lame Name (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lame Name: Can you tell me where this license is stated? Was it in an email to you? Is it inside the publication itself? Any time you upload an image where you, personally, are not the copyright holder, the license needs to be verified. If you have an email, you can forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --B (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall it was stated inside the cover of the newsletter Lame Name (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kemble'sRiot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a derivative work. Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a derivative work - it's a photo which I took myself, and there is nothing in it subject to copyright (Cephascrispus (talk)

You didn't create the advertisement that the person is displaying. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seagroves Farm Park.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If it is "from official town website", then it probably wasn't created by the federal government but by the town. Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nature-Park-Amphitheater-process-s625x210.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If it is "from official town website", then it probably wasn't created by the federal government but by the town. Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apex Community Park.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If it is "from town website", then it probably wasn't created by the federal government but by the town. Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herbert young community center.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If it is "from town website", then it probably wasn't created by the federal government but by the town. Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raymore Pond.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If it is "from city website", then it probably wasn't created by the federal government but by the city. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lions Shelter thumb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• If it is "from city website", then it probably wasn't created by the federal government but by the city. Stefan2 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:FRESH CITY MUSIC GROUP LOGO.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Bogus PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bse sci lib com.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Claim of license is dubious. The source website says that their information may be freely copied, but that doesn't mean that this website owns the copyright to this photograph. The Russian public domain tag seems to apply only to official documents (like laws, court rulings, and such), not to photographs. If the photo were taken pre 1943ish (I think?) then it's public domain, but from this person's apparent age in the photo, that seems unlikely. The subject is deceased and lived before the digital camera age, so I wouldn't have a problem with using it under a claim of fair use. B (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requirement for old photographs is that the photographer must have died before 1946 and that the photograph must have been published before the Soviet Union became a party to the Universal Copyright Convention, or without complying with United States copyright formalities. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This form of licence, for Soviet army servicemen ID photographs, has been used for some years. This is because this type of photograph, like a passport photograph, is an essential part of an official document. The subject, Evgeny Belyaev, was a Communist Party member, an army serviceman and a member of the Alexandrov Ensemble, representing his country outside the Soviet Union as well as within it, and was in that sense an instrument of the government who was photographed for Soviet Government purposes. Storye book (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is this photograph from some identity document? The way ((PD-RU-exempt)) is written, it could mean that points 1) and 4) only apply to text, but not to images. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says documents (comma) including texts. That can be interpreted as meaning documents of all kinds, and that texts are not omitted from the term "documents". It is an official army ID photograph, taken by an army photographer, to identify members of the Red Army Choir (aka Alexandrov Ensemble) which regularly travelled outside Soviet countries during the Soviet era. One of the official purposes of these ID photos was to keep tags on army entertainers going abroad, due to the high incidence of defection during Soviet years (e.g. in the late 1980s when the choir lost so many men to defection during a UK visit, that the choir had to be recalled to the USSR, another ensemble replaced them, audience numbers were decimated and the tour lost a great deal of much-needed money at a time of financial difficulty.) Storye book (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the examples given are typical kinds of textual documents of legal nature. It therefore seems very likely that this part of the law only is meant to cover textual documents of legal nature. However, what you'd really have to check is the original Russian wording (in case it is different in some way) and any relevant background documents. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the primary principle of law in the US, but in the UK it is the intention of a law that counts, and this is established by precedent. I understand that if this were not the case, then there would always potentially be two or more ways of interpreting the wording of a law, so that relying on interpretation of wording alone would invite chaos. Lord Denning, former Master of the Rolls, said the bit about intention counting. Russian law is different from UK law, but I did take a brief look at precedent in Russia regarding this law, and found more than one example of photographs as precedent.Storye book (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2015 (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⚡ 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:E.S.Reddy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source website contains no statement of permission that I could find, nor, for that matter, even apparent authorship of the photo. --B (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2015 (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.