Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 5

< December 4	December 6 >

December 5

File:Alicewond.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Image is PD-US-1923-abroad. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insufficent data to confirm PD-UK claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a theatre poster from the original production of this musical in 1886. Since the artwork was published 127 years ago, it is in the public domain in both the UK (where the musical was produced) and in the US. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who made the artwork? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is ridiculous that this image from 1886 is nominated for deletion. Jack1956 (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Prove it.~~ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on above 'Withdrawn pending updates to file description page.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag wanted is {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} Tim riley (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this was published in 1886, it is in the public domain in the United States per {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. This is all that we need to know.

This appears to be the entire poster. Unless the name of the author is inscribed somewhere on it (it is too small to read some of the text), it is reasonable to assume that the author is unknown. As it is from 1886, there is also a fair chance that the author has been dead for at least 70 years (regardless of whether he is unknown or not), although there may be a small number of authors who were active in 1886 and not dead by 1943. In either case, I think that it is safe to assume that this is in the public domain in the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaustivly determined - So kept? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Vyvyanwilde.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmation of pre 1954 publication needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer of this image from 1895 is unknown so is PD in UK. Use of the image is essential to show Holland at the time of the life-changing events that soon followed the picture being taken. Jack1956 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's point is wholly ad rem: if the image police insist in the teeth of common sense that the picture is not free use, fair use is plainly applicable. Tim riley (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright to the book was renewed with the US copyright office. To verify, go to http://www.copyright.gov/records/ and search for RE0000124804 as "registration number". If this was the first time the photograph was published, then I would assume that the photograph is copyrighted in the United States for 95 years since publication (i.e. until the end of 2049) regardless of the copyright status in the United Kingdom, per Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if the author is unknown, then the photograph is protected by copyright in the United Kingdom for 70 years from publication, provided that it was published within 70 years from creation. 1954 was less than 70 years after the photograph was taken, so if it was first published in 1954 and is anonymous, then the copyright expires 70 years after 1954 in the United Kingdom. If you can find the name of the author before that point, then the term shifts to 70 years from the death of the photographer, which may be either longer or shorter. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:IB&Little.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:IB&Little.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Confirmation needed that likely author is unknown or died prior to c.1942 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 1900 theatre programme is in the public domain. The theatre program was originally the copyright of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, so it ~~is a corporate copyright, and~~ has long. been in the public domain.(Richard D'Oyly Carte died in 1901). -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the public domain as published in 1900. Jack1956 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK Does not have corporate copyrights. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UK most emphatically does. I spent quite a lot of time during my career dealing with it. Tim riley (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Which bit of legislation covers this? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously PD so this image has no place here. Cassianto ^Talk 15:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is correctly tagged and was demonstrably published before 1923. What's the problem? Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn pending confirmation of status.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

This is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} as there is zero creative input in the image. The UK has a different threshold of originality, so the image might be creative there. The 25-year British typographic copyright has obviously expired long ago.

This is {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} as it was published in 1900 which is prior to 1923.

It seems very unlikely that anyone would be attributed for creating something like this, so {{PD-UK-unknown}} can also be assumed. In the worst case, it might be attributed to Richard D'Oyly Carte himself, but he died more than 70 years ago anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Ibsavoy.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

More information required to confirm status, such as the author being unknown. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 1901 theatre programme is in the public domain. The theatre program was originally the copyright of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, so it ~~is a corporate copyright, and~~ has long been in the public domain.(Richard D'Oyly Carte died in 1901). -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep published in 1901 so in public domain. Jack1956 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously. These repeated demands for deletion of images that are patently in compliance with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} verge on vexatious. Tim riley (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason as I gave in the section immediately above. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Scheer.JPG

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No photographer listed, Further information needed to confirm status of image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Unless the name of the photographer is given in the book listed as source, I think that we can also assume {{PD-UK-unknown}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Catherinebooth.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insufficent information to confirm PD-UK status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scanned from Catherine Booth: A Sketch by Brigadier Mildred Duff. Published by The Salvation Army Book Department of London, Melbourne and New York in 1890 on the death of Booth in that year. Jack1956 (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming 1890 publication in New York, (PD-US-19123) and nom withdrawn.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to indicate that it was published concurrently in three countries. The source country would then be the country with the shortest term. This is either the United States or Australia, and the copyright has expired in both of those countries anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:David Alan Stevenson.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Alan Stevenson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Insufficient information to confirm PD-UK status Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also insufficient information to determine USA copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Thomas James Young.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas James Young.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Insufficent information to support a PD UK or PD-URAA claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has been dead since 1869 - the photograph has to have been taken before then Gbawden (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong person - Article linked says - "Thomas Young (born as Thomas Morrell) VC (28 January 1895 – 15 October 1966)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a clarification here? The file information page says 1869, but the Wikipedia article and the linked source say 1966. Also, is this a government photo? If so, check whether it satisfies {{PD-UKGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He died in 1966, as stated in the article. However, this photograph was taken on his being awarded the VC during WWI so the image is PD-US-1923-abroad. Jack1956 (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} requires evidence of publication before 1923, which is currently unavailable. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Beaupre Hall3.jpg

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. --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beaupre Hall3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This image is unfree. The author is credited in this image, but the death of this author is unknown. Searching for "C.W. Rutter" from "Wisbech" is not easy, especially in Google. Also, the photo might be copyrighted under URAA. Publication is unknown, as well. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author/photographer C W Rutter died in Wisbech (his home town) in June 1929. (84 years ago) His death certificate can be found in Volume 3b Page 614 of the British records of death. The building is described as being a ruin for 'several' decades prior to its 1966 demolition; this would suggest that the photograph was taken no later than 1900. Therefore, this image is in the public domain.

Furthermore, even if this image were deemed to be a depiction of a copyrighted three-dimensional work or building, the subject is is the object of discussion in an article. The building was demolished in 1966; it's not possible to take another photograph - so is still elligable for retention in an educational article and project such as Wikipedia. Giano 09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn ^ See above Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:PAKISTAN SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PAKISTAN SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Organisational logo, not necessarily uploader's to relicense. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/PSDP/info This group was created by Jamil in August 2003 at Yahoo groups. http://www.acronymattic.com/PSDP.html http://pakistansocialistdemocraticparty.webstarts.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.6.26 (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Civic Hall Ballarat.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Civic Hall Ballarat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This image is after the 1955 cutoff for photos. 1955+50 = 2005

which is after the URAA date. Does Australia have corporate copyrights? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright terms for Australia are indicated in the template. Whether some copyrights belong to corporations or not is irrelevant for us as this doesn't seem to affect the term. This was copyrighted in Australia in 1996, so it is copyrighted in the United States per Commons:COM:URAA. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:David-railton.jpg

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: Change to non-free image. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:David-railton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No photographer given, Further information needed to support PD-UK claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photographer unknown therefore PD-UK applies, ie 70 years after publication of image. Jack1956 (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the image Polizei succeed in getting this image deleted it can surely be reinstated as fair use for the article in question. Tim riley (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was this photograph published before it was uploaded to that website in 2011? It sounds as if this might be a personal photo, and personal photos are often unpublished. If not previously published, then there are some potential problems:

In the United States, unpublished photographs by anonymous photographers are protected for 120 years from publication, whereas unpublished photographs by named photographers are protected for 70 years from publication (see {{PD-US-unpublished}}). This was taken less than 120 years ago, so if you are claiming that it is anonymous, then the US copyright status might be a problem. If you are claiming that it isn't anonymous, then you need to provide a death date, as many people who were alive around 1919 still were alive in 1943.
In the United Kingdom, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 defines unknown as "For the purposes of this Part the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown." I don't know whether "reasonable inquiry" might require asking David Railton QC whether he knows who the photographer is. If he doesn't know who the photographer is, then I think that it safely can be regarded as unknown authorship. This doesn't affect us as Wikipedia isn't hosted in the United Kingdom.

There is an additional problem in the United Kingdom: If the copyright had expired before it was uploaded to the indicated website in 1918, and it had not previously been published, then it is protected for 25 years in the United Kingdom due to an EU rule. This right belongs to the publisher, regardless of whether he is related to the author in any way. This doesn't affect us as Wikipedia isn't hosted in the European Union. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:R.j.campbell.1903.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:R.j.campbell.1903.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Attributed to Rotary, but UK doesn't have corporate copyrights.

When did the photographer die? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer unknown but image published in 1903 therefore PD-UK applies, ie 70 years after publication of image. Jack1956 (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,

“

Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or a film, is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.

”

This means that the United Kingdom has corporate copyright (at least since 1988 – I haven't bothered looking for older laws). However, this doesn't affect the copyright term of a work; the term is still based on the year of death of the employee and whether the employee's identity is known. Therefore, I do not know why User:Sfan00 IMG asked whether the United Kingdom has corporate copyright in the first place. Anyway, this is a postcard, and it is dated 1903, so there is a fair chance that it was published before 1923, meaning that {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} applies. Also, unless the photographer's name appears on either side of the postcard, it also seems fair to assume that his identity is "unknown", i.e. {{PD-UK-unknown}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Campbell-driving-c1904.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campbell-driving-c1904.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Attributed to rotary , but the UK does not have corporate copyrights, When did the photographer die? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted elsewhere on this page, the above assertion is factually incorrect. The UK most certainly has corporate copyrights, and I spent quite a bit of time during my librarianly career on dealing with related matters. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photographer unknown therefore PD-UK applies, ie 70 years after publication of image. Jack1956 (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider using {{PD-UK-unknown}} for anonymous works and {{PD-old-70}} for works by known authors. That is less confusing. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is also eligible for the PD US abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See my comment in the section immediately above. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Campbell-preaching-c1904.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campbell-preaching-c1904.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No authorship given, so not possible to confirm status definitively. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Artist unknown therefore PD-UK applies, ie 70 years after publication of image. Jack1956 (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD US abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} clearly applies. Unless the author is credited in the cited source, assuming unknown authorship seems reasonable. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:R-j-campbell-rotary-1903.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:R-j-campbell-rotary-1903.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Attributed to Rotary, but the UK does not have corporate copyrights, When did the photographer die? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photographer unknown therefore PD-UK applies, ie 70 years after publication of image. Jack1956 (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD US abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See my comment in #File:R.j.campbell.1903.jpg above. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:The Great John Ganton 1909.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Great John Ganton 1909.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Attributed to Rotary , but the UK does not have corporate copyrights, Who is the photographer and when did they die? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photographer unknown therefore PD-UK applies, ie 70 years after publication of image in 1909. Jack1956 (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am reliably informed by Timriley who has spent some time researching this in his capacity as librarian to an academic institution that the UK does have corporate copyrights; for example, the British Government holds corporate copyright. See here for an example of British Gov corporate copyright. Besides which the early date of this pc makes it PD everywhere. Jack1956 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as it was published before 1923 it is eligible for the PD US abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See my comment in #File:R.j.campbell.1903.jpg above. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:HRH Elizabeth of Romania, HM Queen Marie of Romania, HRH Princess Ileana of Romania, HM Queen Maria of Yugoslavia.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept PD-RO Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:HRH Elizabeth of Romania, HM Queen Marie of Romania, HRH Princess Ileana of Romania, HM Queen Maria of Yugoslavia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Dated to 1931 , but no authorship given. Further evidence needed to support an EU-no-author disclosure (which is the most likely situation). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Author unknown, 1931 Romania". Does this mean that it was published in Romania, or was it merely taken there? If it was published there, then Commons:Template:PD-RO-photo applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Blackstones Company Broad Street Stamford.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackstones Company Broad Street Stamford.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Attributed to Blackstones FC, but the UK doesn't have corporate copyrights, Who is the photographer and when did they die? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several errors in the nomination. See my comment in #File:R.j.campbell.1903.jpg above. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Sir Jacob Behrens.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sir Jacob Behrens.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Attributed to Bradford Chamber of Commerce, UK does not have corporate copyrights. Whose the photographer and when did they die?. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The UK does have corporate copyrights, but in what way is this relevant? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Costa Chekrezi.jpg

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 licence changed to NFUR NtheP (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Costa Chekrezi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Further information required to support pre 1923 US plublication. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The file is used only for illustrating the article of the person only. The person died in 1958. Won't it qualify as "fair use" as well? So, can we change the license to "Non-free biog-pic"?

No objection to a license change.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added the "Non-free biog-pic" license on the file page. Should I do anything else? ThanksMondiad (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:John Beresford Leathes 1910.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Beresford Leathes 1910.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Further information needed to support pre 1923 US publication. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book it is scanned from was published in 1910. Isnt that proof it was taken before 1923? Jack1956 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the book first published?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frontispiece to The Fats London : Longmans & Co., (1910)

Keep per Jack. The date overrides the location as being that age would mean it is PD just about anywhere! Cassianto ^Talk 15:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as it was published in 1910 it should get the PD US abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. It can probably be assumed to be {{PD-UK-unknown}} unless the photographer's identity is indicated anywhere in the book. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Walmer Road Baptist Church.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walmer Road Baptist Church.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Undated image. Further information needed to confirm pre 1923 publication. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Comptonhenry.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Further information needed to support a PD-UK claim, whose the author of the artwork? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not artwork but a photograph taken and published before the sitter's death in 1877 by an unknown photographer so is PD-UK under the 70 year rule. Jack1956 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This 1877 photo is in the public domain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether the author is unknown or not seems irrelevant. Anyone who was alive in 1877 should have been dead for at least 70 years by now. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Frieda-lawrence-1901.jpg

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) 00:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frieda-lawrence-1901.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Listed publication is 1972, Confirmation of pre 1923 (or UK) publication would be appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book blurb reads 'Cover illustration from a photograph of Frieda von Richthofen first published in 1901' [1] Jack1956 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was published in 1901, it should get the Public Domain abroad tag. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. If you wish to claim {{PD-UK-unknown}}, then first check whether the photographer is credited in the 1901 book or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer not credited in the book. Jack1956 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - PD-US-1923-abroad.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Hype Energy Drinks, Product Cans Dec 2013.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hype Energy Drinks, Product Cans Dec 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Packaging artwork. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Social equity.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Social equity.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is way more complex than simple geometory. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Texas Toast Box.jpg

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, mistargeted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Texas Toast Box.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The image of food on this box is creatively arranged and copyrightable. As it comprises a significant portion of the photograph, it would render the photograph nonfree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Nazi-SovietEcoRelations Six.png

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazi-SovietEcoRelations Six.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Some of the images used appear to have been deleted, making it impossible to confirm exact status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the six source images for this montage is redlinked (the same Stalin image as in the discussion below), are there any others that are problematic? If the Stalin image is the only unfree one we could ask WP:LAB to replace it with another image of Stalin, then delete the previous revisions. January (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Nazi-SovietRelations Six.png

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazi-SovietRelations Six.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Stalin image was deleted making it impossible to confirm status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Stalin image was deleted per the March 2012 discussion in Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joseph Stalin.jpg after it transpired that the OTRS permission was faked (the 2013 discussion is for a different image). Since this montage is not used in article space it's not worth the while finding a replacement. January (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:LomonovYu1train.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:LomonovYu1train.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The author is not stated, so further information is needed to support an anon claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A diligent search for the author brought no results (e.g. [2]) - it likely a scan of an old news publication. Materialscientist (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is not enough. If it is a scan from an old newspaper, you would have to check whether the author is credited in that newspaper. If he isn't credited there, then you may have a fair chance to claim that he is anonymous, but we would need evidence that he isn't credited there first. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I and reprinting web authors take that chance and claim anonymous publication - we don't know the source, and it seems very hard to identify it, not to mention locating a figure caption there. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Early map of Municipality of St Leonards East.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Early map of Municipality of St Leonards East.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

"Early map published in the North Shore Times 8 May 1963 " , IS the map from 1963 or a reprint from earlier? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Old nuttelex factory.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old nuttelex factory.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No author listed, and a dead source, Impossible to confirm as PD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Admiral Sir David Anderson.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral Sir David Anderson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Unknown artist, Further information needed to support Anon claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.