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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Paso Museum of History.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Source doesn't seem to contain anything that indicates this image is released under a CC license. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:19, 22 May 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.

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. No evidence of publication. If unpublished photo needs to be pre-1893 or known author who died pre-1943 to be PD. Deleted by Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Balbardie House1910.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is in the public domain because the photo was taken in 1910. However, unless it was published before 1923, it may still be protected by copyright. There is no information about when or where it was first published. Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's 103 years old and most certainly is out of copyright. Delete it and I shall immediately upload it again.  Giano  17:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it is out of copyright or not depends on when it was first published, and it currently doesn't say when it was first published, only when it was taken. You will have to specify where this was published so that your PD claim can be verified. If it is deleted and then reuploaded, see ((db-g4)). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:44, 22 May 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.

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. Diannaa (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin R. Jacobs - March 15 1954 - 83d40m - 75 years old.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It is unclear whether the uploader meant that he took the photo himself in 1954 or if he just scanned it. Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fair use the subject is dead (for 50 years), so no new free image can be created. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wonder how many scanners there were in 1954? The answer is, I took the photograph with a camera. A scan is necessary to put a photograph into a digital form and the digital image was uploaded to Wikipedia on October 25, 2008. The author is 83d40m. There is no reason to delete the image. The summary reads == scan of photograph of brj taken on 3.15.1954 on his 75th birthday (anniversary, of course) - from personal collection==, a quick look at the article identifies his birthday as 3.15.1879 and the file name clearly identifies the date and age of the subject. I believe that the summary identifies the source as "self made". (You guys have too much time on your hands to be debating what "is" "is"... but thank you for patrolling for the safety of Wikipedia!) _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:09, 23 May 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.

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. No evidence of publication before 1923. If creation date is correct, it will be PD in the US on 1 Jan 2014 and can be restored then. Deleted by Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Bertrand Russell in 1893.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of pre-1923 publication. It seems that the source website has a mixture of scans of publications and scans of real photos (which may be unpublished). If not published before 1923, it may be protected by copyright in the United States.

No evidence for the ((PD-old-70)) claim either. The source website doesn't tell where the image comes from or by whom it was taken, so we don't know anything about the year of death of the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Grain looks like paper, possible evidence (but not proof) of publication. Not enough for me to !vote keep on, but a possible consideration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, but was that publication before or after 1923? His first book was published in 1896, so this was probably not published in 1893 at least. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blnguyen winter.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyvio per Commons:COM:TOYS. Stefan2 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 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.

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. The angel is certainly a copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 101. As it's not a building in a public place, there in no FOP for it. Deleted by Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• Undeleted. No consensus for deletion. From the project page: "The primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file and contributions should not be added solely in those terms." This page is for discussing authorship, not just deleting files. Without consensus to delete, you can either close as no consensus or take to WP:NFCR. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brittany Murphy grave.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No freedom of panorama for gravestone decorations in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? The barely discernible angel on the right? The out of focus dollar store ceramics? Show me an author of any of those things. This is essentially typeface with confetti and beads on it. Give me a break. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the author is anonymous or not doesn't matter. It is still protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several artistic features there. Two angels, one transparent thing in the bottom-left corner and then the border with leaves. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I've seen some pretty absurd nominations from you, but this just might take the cake. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any "absurd nominations". The leaves and the angles are definitely artworks. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Prove it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check http://no-solicitors-sign.com/ which shows two signs which are less artistic than this grave but still protected by copyright. Also check this PDF file which shows two logos, the second one being protected by copyright whilst being less artistic than this grave. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that those are comparable. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:58, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buckley-jubilee-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buckley-jubilee-2.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it says "donated to the public domain", your concern on Commons doesn't match the statement. Uploaded to wikipedia and donated to the public domain means it's free and clear. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says that the image was donated to the public domain by the uploader, but the uploader is not the copyright holder as the image was taken by the uploader's sister. OTRS permission is needed from the uploader's sister. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hadi Tavoosi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of pre-1983 publication. Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's for the time he was head of Iranian FA and his time was from 1980 to 1981. Tabarez (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate the title of the book in which it was published before 1983, or the issue number of the magazine or the date of the newspaper. There is currently no way to tell whether this photo remained unpublished in a drawer for several years or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment does it matter? Isn't everything published in Iran not covered by US copyright law, because of the IP treaty situation between the two countries? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that it was first published in Iran (the first identified source is Persian Wikipedia which is hosted in the US but that is obviously not the first place to publish the image), and besides there was an RfC at 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? that we should treat Iranian works as unfree unless they are in the public domain in Iran or covered by ((PD-1923)), ((FoP-USonly)) or ((PD-ineligible-USonly)). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Onanole Manitoba July 25 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear whether the uploader's grandmother's permission only was for uploading the image or whether it covers the specified licence. Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why don't you just contact the uploader? The file explicitly says contact them in case of problems -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rule is that the uploader should contact OTRS, not to state that other people should contact the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BUREAUCRACY, you should still ask, stating exactly what the problem is. Wikipedia is complicated enough for most users, for us to not deliberately make it more opaque and unusable. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:01, 25 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naoto Ōshima Photo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the uploader at wikia:sonic:File:Ohshima.jpg is the copyright holder or that the photo is freely licensed. Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shams ud Din Khan-1969.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear if the uploader is the owner of the copyright or only the owner of a copy of the image. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This picture has no copy rights. I the uploader , have personally received it from the family members for this purpose. Gam zu l'tovah (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the image was "received from family members", then you are not the copyright holder, so you need to ask the photographer to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 24 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:All PZT Mach effect thruster test unit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The permission only seems to be to "illustrate the Woodward effect page". Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:One of the libraries at BSS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unclear if the licence allows you to modify the images. Also, the permission is only for printed matters, Power Point files and websites. It is unclear if you can print the image on a t-shirt or if you can use it with any of Power Point's competitors. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chrome Dokuro.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It seems that the permission wasn't given by the copyright holder. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 22 May 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.

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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hermann Neuhoff, Nazi German Luftwaffe Ace.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD claim: it is based on an old law which was changed on 1 July 1995. No evidence that the photo was published before 1923 or that the photographer died before 1926 as required for this to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• convert to fairuse subject is dead, no new free image can be created -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Jessie Tarbox Beals standing outside with her camera, ca. 1927-1929 PC60-9-14.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a photo of Jessie Tarbox Beals, so it is unlikely that she is the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fairuse the subject has been dead for 70 years, so no new free image can be created. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I am deleting this, as there's a free image available at the Library of Congress -- Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 6 July 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The screen savers logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD claim. Stefan2 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gertar bridge 1929.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that it was published more than 70 years ago and no explanation as to why that would make it free in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is taken from a Facebook page called "HinYerevan.com". The photo can be see here. As you can see the caption says 1929. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:40, 29 May 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.

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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Diannaa (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Edward Nurse VC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that it is anonymous. The source doesn't tell where it found the image.

No information about the copyright status in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to fairuse subject has been dead for 70 years so no new free image can be created -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• G'day, the licence on the image states "the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry", so I suppose it comes down to what our interpretation of that is. For instance to whom the author is unknown and what constitutes reasonable enquiry. One imagines that "unknown" here relates to the uploader, or another editor trying to confirm its status, but what is "reasonable enquiry"? Seems quite subjective. That said, I haven't been able to ascertain the author searching for George Nurse in Google Books, or by using the "search by image" function [1]. Does that constitute reasonable enquiry, though? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author is only unknown if the photo never has been published with a photo credit, and only if the photographer never has told the general public that he took the photo. Google Books doesn't have all books, and not necessarily any book containing this photo. As neither Find a Grave nor invisionzone.com tell where they found the photo, we don't know whether they took it from a book or newspaper where the photographer's name is indicated, or whether they took it from some other source. That's the problem with secondary sources: they don't tell where they found the photos, so there is no way to check whether it is anonymous or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for replying, is there a policy guide that outlines what consistutes "reasonable enquiry", or is it determined by whoever closes this discussion? Before I go spending more time looking for the image, I would like to know whether I'm likely to be able to meet the required standard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, it looks like a scan of a printed publication, for example a book or a newspaper, so I would assume that "reasonable enquiry" would at least mean looking at that book or newspaper to see if the name of the photographer is given there. For showing USA copyright status, it would be enough to show that the image was published before 1923. Unfortunately, we don't know whether it comes from a book published at the time it was taken or whether it comes from some book about historical events which was published a lot later. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I'd feel more comfortable if there was actually a policy link defining "reasonable enquiry", but I will take your word for it. By that definition I won't be able to meet the requirement (one assumes that it would be in a newspaper or regimental journal from the time, but I don't have access to such sources), so it is probably easier just to convert it to a fair use claim. Would that be acceptable? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:33, 2 June 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.

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 as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Thomas (VC).png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the photographer is anonymous as claimed. The source doesn't tell where it got the image from.

No information about the copyright status in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to fairuse subject has been dead for 60 years, so no new free image can be created -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 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.

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 as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ernest Frederick Beal VC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the photographer is anonymous as claimed. The source doesn't tell where it got the image from.

No information about the copyright status in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to fairuse subject has been dead 95 years, so no new free image can be created -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 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.

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 as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank Bernard Wearne VC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the photographer is anonymous as claimed. The source doesn't tell where it got the image from.

No information about the copyright status in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to fairuse subject has been dead 95 years, so no new free image can be created -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 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.

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 as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Nicholson Bradford VC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the photographer is anonymous as claimed. The source doesn't tell where it got the image from.

No information about the copyright status in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to fairuse subject has been dead 95 years, so no new free image can be created -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AliBaba1941.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the photo is claimed to have been taken in 1941, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:HP lok sabha 1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a scan of a 1999 political document in India. The uploader says he releases under a free license, but I suspect the underlying work is still copyrighted and non-free. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ambedkarcu2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. The age of the photo is unknown, so we don't even know if it was taken before 1941, let alone if it was published before that year. Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:AN Khosla picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the photo is claimed to have been taken in 1950, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annamalai University hostel 1941.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the photo is claimed to have been taken in 1941, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the photo is claimed to have been taken in 1946, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the photo is claimed to have been taken in 1941, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the photo is claimed to have been taken in 1950, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. The age of the photo is unknown, so we don't even know if it was taken before 1941, let alone if it was published before that year. Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ashokkumar1941film.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the photo is claimed to have been taken in 1941, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Only American works are supposed to exist in the US public domain. This is Indian work, and Indian public domain means photos taken before 1953. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • US copyright law also covers works from India. Indian public domain means published before 1953, not taken before 1953, so you need to identify whether the photo has been published or not. For example, unpublished family photos have perpetual copyright protection in India unless they were taken before 1908. In this case, it is obvious that the image was published in 1941.

The problem is that US law protects all Indian photos which were not yet in the public domain in India on 1 January 1996 because the United States doesn't use the rule of the shorter term. Only photos published before 1941, or taken before 1908, were in the public domain in India on 1 January 1996. This is also explained on Commons:COM:URAA and Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:JK lok sabha 1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a scan of a 1999 political document in India. The uploader says he releases under a free license, but I suspect the underlying work is still copyrighted and non-free. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:40, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:KL lok sabha 1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a scan of a 1999 political document in India. The uploader says he releases under a free license, but I suspect the underlying work is still copyrighted and non-free. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:44, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:UP lok sabha 1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a scan of a 1999 political document in India. The uploader says he releases under a free license, but I suspect the underlying work is still copyrighted and non-free. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:47, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bala Nagamma 1942.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the image is claimed to have been made in 1942, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balaraju 1948.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the image is claimed to have been made in 1948, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bangla logo1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No explanation as to why the PD tag would apply. Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Best Bus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. The age of the photo is unknown, so we don't even know if it was taken before 1941, let alone if it was published before that year. Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bhakta Potana.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the image illustrates a 1942 film, it is unlikely that it was published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brahmaratham2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the image illustrates a 1947 film, it is unlikely that it was published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brahmaratham1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the image illustrates a 1947 film, it is unlikely that it was published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It says that this is a work from 1943 which is in the public domain because it was published before 1923. This is obviously not possible.

This is an Indian work which was not published before 1941. As it was not published before 1941, it is protected by copyright for 95 years since publication in the United States, per Commons:COM:URAA. Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Stefan, everything you say is nonsense, as so often. This is a photo of a 2D work from the 18th century, & falls under Bridgeman-Corel. The BOOK reproducing it was published in 1943. Why we should want such a poor image is another matter. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, sorry. I was confused by other statements on the file information page stating that it was from 1943. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 24 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChhotuRam1941.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the photo is claimed to have been taken in 1941, it can't have been published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 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.

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 as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cornelia Sorabji.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. The age of the photo is unknown, so we don't even know if it was taken before 1941, let alone if it was published before that year. Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject was born in 1866 and she would be 75 in 1941. This picture is definitely taken before 1941. About publication, i can't comment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:18, 23 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dev Anand Namoona.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. As the image illustrates a 1949 film, it is unlikely that it was published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This image of an Indian actor (Dev Anand) in a Bollywood film was both taken and published before 1953, therefore it does not fail Indian PD criteria (which means photos older than 1953). ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Photos older than 1953" is wrong as Indian law says "photos published before 1953". Unpublished photos, such as private family photos, get perpetual copyright in India, unless they were taken before 1908. However, this doesn't matter as Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, where the copyright expires 95 years after publication unless the copyright already had expired in India on 1 January 1996. See Commons:COM:URAA and Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bcoz of ur statement, does it mean all Indian PD photos (taken/published during 1913-1953) deserve to be deleted? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No:

1. Indian photos published before 1923 are always in the public domain in the United States, because of an older copyright law.
2. Indian photos published between 1923 and 1940 are usually in the public domain in the United States due to older copyright rules. In occasional cases, there might be a subsisting copyright, but that would require the Indian copyright holder to actively submit a paper to the US authorities and pay a fee, which is unlikely in most cases.
3. Indian unpublished photos are in the public domain in the United States if they satisfy ((PD-US-unpublished)), regardless of when they were taken. Such photos are not necessarily in the public domain in India, though, and can only be on Commons if they were taken before 1908.

However, photos first published in 1941 or later have to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not "have to be deleted". Many of them may be fair use. Maybe a little less time here, and a little more time reading the image use policy. Or maybe just the main page of this process, which explains that "the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file and contributions should not be added solely in those terms." This page is for discussing authorship, not just deleting files. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it may be possible to keep some under a fair use claim, although I suspect that it will often be possible to replace them by using a slightly older image instead, thereby meaning that they violate WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is to be decided here. What you are talking about is determined on a case-by-case basis at WP:NFCR. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:52, 24 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. The image is listed as being from around the 1940s. As this could mean both before and after 1941, we don't know whether this was published before 1941 or not. Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Dharasana Satyagraha happened in May 1930. But of course, the depiction of the event through a drawing can happen even in 2013. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:23, 23 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is only in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1941. The image is listed as being from around the 1940s. As this could mean both before and after 1941, we don't know whether this was published before 1941 or not. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Dharasana Satyagraha happened in May 1930. But of course, the depiction of the event through a drawing can happen even in 2013. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:24, 23 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of Ryan Toby.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Conflicting information in the image's source - uploader claims to have taken the photo, but original source is said to be the subject's facebook page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:56, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put your reason for deletion just after "reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs).

• reason 66.30.91.150 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 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.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ya zahra air defense system.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a collage of screengrabs; highly unlikely to be self-made bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if the collage is self-made, then the source images seem to be Iranian in origin, which due to the IP-treaty relationship between Iran and the US would not be protected. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 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.