Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7[edit]

File:Hoalogo.gif[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in any way an "Logo" for the House of Aaron. It is a concept logo presented on a person myspace page. It would be like me drawing an image for my version of a Wikipedia logo, then uploading it on the main page. The image has no encyclopedic value. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:23, 7 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.

File:Balachandran.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 F11 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photograph of a painting that exists at the Mullivaikal Muttram shrine. The uploader has mistakenly assumed copyright ownership of the photograph, but the copyright of the image remains with the painter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The file is a photographic reproduction of a piece of art that is on display at a public museum, and such reproductions are legal and free from copyright restrictions in India where it is based on and many other countries including the US. So I guess only the licensing must be modified in order to retain the file. --CuCl₂ ^(chat ^spy ^acquaint) 09:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the laws in India, but the laws of the United States (which govern the English Wikipedia) state that an artist retains all rights to his paintings and to any reproductions of those paintings, unless the reproduction introduces sufficient originality to be considered a new work of art. In this case, that is not so. (See this article in The New York Times.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Commons:COM:FOP#India doesn't apply to 2D things like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 12 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.

File:Yitzhak Baer.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

apparently mislabelled, see duplicate File:Heinrich Graetz.jpg. Photograph seems not to show 20th-century scholar Yitzhak Baer but 19th-century scholar Heinrich Graetz Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 7 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.

File:Frank Sinatra - 1950s.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 - there is far too little provenance for this image to adequately determine the copyright status - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly invalid PD claim, photo is sourced to an Ebay listing from a seller in Argentina, and carries Spanish language text. There is absolutely no basis for determining that it was published in the US before 1978, or that its US publication did not carry a copyright notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical publicity photo from a studio. The imprint on the photo is written in English and states it was from MGM. The fact that it was printed, then distiubuted by MGM to the press to publicize an American actor, is proof of publication per copyright law. The details on the reverse were merely translated printed statements depending on where the still was sent with press kits, and does not mean the actor was Spanish, that MGM had a Spanish office, or that the photo was taken in another country. It is simply a U.S. photo sent to the press in Latin America. The publication requirement is cited below:

"Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first distributed to the public."--Light show (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Commons:Template:PD-AR-Photo tells that it is in the public domain in Argentina if it was taken more than 25 years ago and published more than 20 years ago. Not sure if the photo satisfies the Argentine definition of publication. Argentina might not define publication in the same way as the United States, and just sending photos to the press, allowing the press to publish them, doesn't constitute publication everywhere in the world.

If the photograph comes from MGM, then there is a possibility that the photographer was a US citizen residing in the US. In that special case, {{PD-US-no notice}} can be used to determine the copyright status in the United States (and only in the United States but not in the source country) even if the photograph was first published outside the United States, as works by US citizens residing in the United States are ineligible for URAA restoration. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 12 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.