The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melissa-claire-egan-small-thumb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• source [1] is aggregate of unsourced & probable (c) violations - no indication where this image is initially from, thus not possible to prove it was released as GNU-FDL Skier Dude (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. User:CGSexyPhat is serial copyvio uploader and is still here because... because??? Why is this user still here? Jack Merridew 05:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete clear copyvio not allowed by WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Image is a clear copyvio. Copyright notice at the bottom of the source states "All content is Copyright © 2005-2010 b5media. All rights reserved.". --AussieLegend (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2010 (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 image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• copyrighted logos Svgalbertian (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((subst:puitop|Tagged as non-free now - Peripitus (Talk) 03:26, 29 January 2010 (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 image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep; the file is tagged as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Universal Contactless Card Symbol.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• image not orginal, may be copyrighted Svgalbertian (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image is not copyrighted as it is too generic, i see this image on almost every contactless smart card reader. If it is it has become about as generic as a men/woman restroom sign or a disabled access sign, this image was tagged immediately after the source file used to make the vector immage was deleted, admins please pull back up the source file and look at the FUR form that one to see my point, Thanks. :) Koman90 A+ (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would expect this design to pass the threshold of originality under most jurisdictions, and therefore be non-free unless explicitly released under a free license by the copyright holder. I did a bit of Googling, and according to this page, "the Contactless Indicator, Contactless Symbol and trademark rights were donated by MasterCard and Visa to EMVCo in 2006 for licensing under EMVCo's governance and structure." Their Terms of Use page says, in section 4, that "... all materials on the Site ... are the proprietary property of EMVCo or its licensors", and sets out some very restrictive terms that explicitly forbid redistribution and creation of derivative works. Of course, this does not prove that EMVCo hasn't released the copyright to these specific symbols under more permissive terms, but so far I've seen no evidence that they'd have done so. I suppose someone could always e-mail them and ask. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this logo is used to convey the meaning of multiple companies MasterCard "paypass" visa's "pay wave" amex "express pay" and chase bank's "Blink" it facilitate the concept of multiple service providers in a generic format such as a bus symbol or a P for parking or an i for information, this is far to generic and the symbols have Ben passed on to far too many providers to keep track of, what i want to know is why someone marked this with deletion after i created it as a vector and why they chose to mark the vector over the raster, if anything since it is copyrighted it should be vector, rather the original link listed above is not where i got the logo it was screen captured ron this flash demo of visa paywave where the "wave "portion of the logo, the corresponding symbol is used quite frequently, as if visa owned it, and MasterCard, amex, and chase do it to, one quick question if this is a copyrighted logo, how gave verifone, a common pin-pad manufacturer the right to print it on their equipment? Koman90, A+ (Verify) (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-tag as ((non-free logo)). How ubiquitous the image is does not have any effect on whether it is public domain or not. We don't know what agreements the license holder has with the various companies that use the logo. We have to have proof it's been released into PD or under a free license, not supposition that it has. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• cloud have swarn i put the non-free logo tag there along with textlgo tag because of the "geometric shapes" phrasing but sure I will change the tag. If this concludes the discussion please feel free to remove the deletion template. --Koman90, A+ (Verify) (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:55, 28 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Z2636c WMsm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Book cover; no source or metadata; unlikely uploader is (c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Corporate logo; no source; no metadata; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for user-created art here Skier Dude (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZTBL accounts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be promotional material for bank; if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not, no need for possibly misleading user-created image here Skier Dude (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Za nas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• book cover; no source; no metadata; unlikely uploader is author/publishing company/(c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaat hermenieke (1).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source or metadata; record artwork, most likely (c) by Philips audio Skier Dude (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems almost ((PD-text)), except for the Philips logo. One could perhaps argue that the inclusion of the logo is incidental and de minimis (and I would argue so on commons). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uste za nas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• book cover; no source; no metadata; unlikely uploader is author/publishing company/(c) holder Skier Dude (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2010 (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 image 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: No Consensus; perhaps this may also have been the wrong forum. WP:MCQ or the file's talk page might have been a better place to discuss. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Please note that this discussion isn't about deleting this file. The question at hand is how this file should be tagged. Nobody is suggesting deletion of the file. The question before you to evaluate is whether this file is in the public domain or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No evidence that this is a work of the UK government (seems very unlikely to be so). No other reason to believe that this is PD. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retag as ((Non-free seal)) or ((Non-free logo)) (as most such arms are tagged). I disagree with J Milburn. The work appears to be from the College of Arms, which is part of the crown. However, the work was granted under Letters Patent. For this type of work, this is copyright protection and it is perpetual, not subject to expiry [2]. Though this claim has standing in the UK only, the claim that it is PD in the UK due to being 50+ years in publication and crown copyright expired is made invalid by this. Therefore, if it's going to be clear of copyright by other means of age, some other claim must be made and sustained. This is not present. An argument can readily be made that this file fails CSD F9. Regardless, it has use here and should be re-tagged as non-free, and a rationale restored/provided.--Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a logo. Not replaceable. Used to illustrate an infobox in article space.--Kudpung (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, your argument has nothing to do with its copyright status. We of course will keep it, the question is under what license. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  ((PD-BritishGov))--Kudpung (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  ...which I showed to be an invalid tag in this case. Do you have something to rebut my claim that it is invalid in this case? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You showed that things covered under the Letters Patent Act are covered in perpetuity within England (not even all of the UK), however, you never showed how this logo falls under that juridstiction. The document you link to states only

  Those works protected under Letters Patent have perpetual copyright claimed over them despite being published. However, this claim is of very limited jurisdiction. It only applies to the United Kingdom, and even then not to all parts of the United Kingdom. The only area where it certainly applies is England itself.

  The types of documents that fall under this are those that "are written upon open sheets of parchment, with the seal of the sovereign or party by whom they were issued pendent at the bottom." I see nothing to back up your claim that "...[this] work was granted under Letters Patent." By the source you stated, the only thing that falls under this law is "...the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer." I would assume any other official document written on parchment with an appropriate seal that came from the King/Queen of England (decrees of nobility, land deeds, Acts of Parliament, etc) would also fall under this, but this little picture bears none of these requisite items and is not claimed under any known source to fall under the Letters Patent exceptions to end-of-copyright provisions.

  Lastly, you really shouldn't change your answer as Kudpung's comment was a response to yours (it takes out all the context of his response that you thought it should be deleted). Line out all you want, but please don't remove parts of the conversation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Lecturing on my behavior ignored) You claim it wasn't issued under Letters Patent. It was. See source of the file which notes "the College of Arms granted the Coat of Arms by Letters Patent on 21 May 1947". Further, the cite [3] I noted does not say this protection is limited only to the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. It says this protection includes those works, not ONLY those works. Your assertion is therefore false. Also, your citation to the definition of Letters Patent [4] is not specific to the UK and has no standing in law. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see resp below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is ((PD-BritishGov)). It is a work of the Crown (no dissent there) and does not fall under the Letters Patent exceptions (even if it did, that copyright is only recognized in England proper) given in my explanation above. However, this is not confuse the issue that non-free images are not allowed in templates or user space; non-free images aren't allowed in those spaces, period. This one simply is a PD image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  PD-BritishGov applies to release of rights under UK law. This isn't released from rights by UK law, as I've shown above. It is under perpetual copyright under UK law. So, make a declaration of it being PD via some other means, as it clearly is not PD via British law. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand corrected...partly (if you'd stated this as your reasoning, this would have been a lot easier). This image does indeed appear to fall under the Letters Patent exceptions (I missed that when I first read through the source document), however, it is only non-PD within specific applications in the UK. Those copyright restrictions do not apply in the US. A similar example is the King James Bible which, while PD in the US, it is copyrighted in perpetuity within only certain realms of the UK (not even the entire country). Perhaps a new tag is necessary.

  As for the rest, I never said it applied only to the KJB and the BoCP, but that the source you cited only mentioned those two. The definition link was context to those unfamiliar with the concept, not a end-all, be-all source. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If you now believe that to be the case, then you now know that the pd-britishgov tag is invalid. So under what claim do you make it to be PD then? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "...you now know that the pd-britishgov tag is invalid." Uh...I "know" no such thing and never made such an assertion. The copyright for this image under a crown copyright has expired in every other part of the world (to include America). The only copyrights that apply are, as stated above, "...this claim is of very limited jurisdiction. It only applies to the United Kingdom, and even then not to all parts of the United Kingdom. The only area where it certainly applies is England itself." As the servers reside in the U.S. this copyright does not apply and the image is indeed PD, much as the KJV Bible is also PD here in the US. If you want to look at it another way, it is PD in the US: it has no copyright markings and is, therefore, ((PD-Pre1978)). Pick your poison. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How does this tag work for you? ((PD-Letters Patent)) — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Creating new copyright tags when you know nothing of British law. I'll grant that it's interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone can create any template on Wikipedia (that's how all other templates were created too!). It doesn't mean it is useful or accurate. I can read and understand the provided links as well as anyone else. To state "you know nothing of British law" is just arrogance on you part; you have no idea what I do or do not know. I find such a statement quite insulting. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, fine. Benefit of the doubt. What credentials do you have vis-a-vis British law? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No more than you or any other layperson. Just like anyone else, I can educate myself on the subject pretty easily with the internet. This lack of a doctorate/profession didn't stop other Wikipedians from creating many other templates too (PD or otherwise). Such expertise is not required to contribute to Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Golly, I didn't inted my innocent use of a UK national emblem to become the source of so much polemic.Time to give it a rest methinks, and prefereably agree to leav my county crest where it is, otherwise I'll start by hanging an AfD on Old Glory --Kudpung (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC);)[reply]

  • So, BQ, my elevation of your legal knowledge of British law was accurate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Your snide remarks and belittling are not much appreciated. I'll take solace in the fact that you haven't actually found any fault with any of my assertions, but instead have decided to say my opinions don't mean much because I'm not an expert:

  "I think A, B, C."

  "You're no expert on the subject therefore your opinion is worthless."

  "Comment on content, not on the contributor". — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If noting your lack of qualification in British law counts as a snide remark, so be it. I'll stand by it. I'll also stand by my lack of knowledge of British law as well. However, I didn't create a new copyright clearance tag for Wikipedia. I think other people more knowledgeable than either of us should be considering this template before it goes into general use. Jheald found some interesting knowledge in the URAA which invalidates your claims on the template. I think the template should be discussed, perhaps at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "You know nothing" is quite condescending and inappropriate...and you don't consider using the talk page before running to another board...again... A template is simply an easier way to type things. Use it; don't use it. Whatever. It is the responsibility of the person using it to use it correctly. I can tag anything ((PD-text)) and it doesn't make it so. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - BQZip01 sums it up well. Jeni ^(talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The ultimate question we need to consider here, for en-wiki, is not its current copyright status under UK English law; but rather, its current status under US law (probably most specifically the URAA of 1996). I suspect this needs expert input; but I would want to see a much clearer argument as to why this is contended to be currently PD under U.S. law. Jheald (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "...why this is contended to be currently PD under U.S. law." "Ask, and ye shall receive." (To be clear, that is a quote from the KJV Bible and is copyrighted under Letters Patent Crown copyright in England and a few other places...it is PD in the rest of the world.) Under US law, this logo never appears with the copyright symbol. Since it was first published prior to 1978, it falls under the provisions outlined in ((PD-Pre1978)). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I encourage you to read Uruguay Round Agreement Act, and then try again? Jheald (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What specifically are you trying to point out under URAA? (I have no intention of reading through the entire act to try and figure out what you are gettign at). — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe (Jheald, please correct me if I'm wrong) he was referring to this: "Copyrights on foreign works were only restored if these works were still covered by copyright or neighbouring rights in their source countries on January 1, 1996. But if so, the copyright in the U.S. was restored automatically; the restored copyright is subject to the normal U.S. term as if the work had never fallen into the public domain in the U.S." Such works did not have to have been published with a copyright notice affixed to them. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How convenient for you that you left out the preceding phrases: "17 USC 104A effectively restored the copyrights on foreign works that previously were not copyrighted in the U.S. due to a failure to meet the U.S. formalities (such as not having a copyright notice, or not having been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, or not having had its copyright renewed) or due to a lack of international treaties between the U.S. and the country of origin of the work." In fact, we had such a treaty and these works were covered. ((PD-Pre1978)) may not apply, but other provisions in the UK make this PD anyway. this discussion is completely academic. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, it is, but not for your position. It's blatantly clear the work is still copyrighted in the UK, and under URAA it therefore still enjoys the protection of copyright. If you think otherwise, I'd certainly be happy to hear under what terms you think this is not under copyright anymore. It's not pd-britishgov, it's not pd-pre1978. So what is it if you think it's free? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Those two tags aren't the only things that can be used and I've explained why it is PD. Tags, by themselves, are not the source of PD, they are merely a method by which we display a rationale. I've also noted you don't dispute those points, but instead disparage me for personally for creating an accurate tag. Neither I or anyone else need your personal approval to make improvements to the encyclopedia. I'd create a ((PD-Pink and Purple Monster)) template if I felt it would be useful and I had a rationale to back it up...and guess what? I could. Just like anyone else can. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine. You claim it is PD, but you haven't demonstrated how it is PD. First you claimed it is PD via your new template. That was shown to be invalid. Then you claimed it was PD via being pre-1978. That was shown to be invalid. Under what terms do you claim it to be PD now? Copyright has been restored to it via the URAA and United States acceptance of URAA. So under what terms do you claim this is PD? You've claimed above that it's PD via other provisions in the UK. What provisions? Please be clear. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing in "my" tag has be "shown to be invalid". You simply denigrated my contribution and belittled me personally, which isn't proof of any kind. Lets break this down:

  1. Crown copyrighted works of art lose copyrights 50 years after publication.
  2. This image also falls under "Letters Patent" Crown copyright provisions.
  3. "Letters Patent" copyright provisions apply ONLY in certain parts of the UK and do not extend beyond its borders.
  4. This image was created in 1948.
  5. 1948+50=1998.

  Therefore, as of 1998, the only remaining copyright provisions in force right were those of "Letters Patent" which only exists within the UK (and even then, not all of the UK). Which of these assertions is incorrect? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (left adjusting, getting pretty deep) The URAA says "Copyrights on foreign works were only restored if these works were still covered by copyright or neighbouring rights in their source countries on January 1, 1996." This image was under copyright at the time, and remains so in the source country. Therefore, the URAA restored copyright to it in the United States. The only opposition to that statement I've so far been able to derive from your comments is that you said "due to a lack of international treaties between the U.S. and the country of origin of the work." In fact, we had such a treaty and these works were covered." but I haven't found any citation pointing to such a treaty on your part that indicated the United States considered this item in the public domain by such an international treaty. We do have an international treaty in the form of the URAA which makes it pretty clear that, so long as this item was covered under copyright in the source country as of 1996 (and it was), copyright protections to it were restored in the United States if they did not exist at the time. Can you cite some international treaty that invalidates this? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "...copyright protections to it were restored in the United States if they did not exist at the time." Any copyrights lost for this image in the U.S. were restored in 1996 (As I stated and you rightly pointed out ((PD-Pre1978)) doesn't apply). In this case, copyright protections were in effect for this image in the UK under Crown copyright until 1998 (two years later) when this image became PD outside of the UK. How about this: if we can't agree on when it expired, perhaps you can explain to me when the copyright on it expires in the future? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  We aren't concerned with the future. We're concerned with it's status right now. It's not clear of copyright by any UK law. It's not clear of copyright by URAA. So by what vehicle is it PD now? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I already explained its current status (please read all of the above; don't just ignore the parts you find inconvenient). If you still disagree, then please tell me when the copyright protections run out. I contend they already have and have explained why. It is incumbent upon you to state where I am wrong and why? Simply explaining when the copyright status runs out (by your interpretation) and why would satisfy that request. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've asked you to be specific as to how this is currently PD. Twice now, you've asked me to just read what you've already said. Well I have, despite your baseless accusations, and I'm finding nothing in your statements that proves this is PD by any vehicle, other than your claim that it's PD by way of some unspecified international treaty. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  HS, I've never stated it was PD by some unspecified international treaty. I'm not specifying any treaty because this is all internal to the UK (ergo, no treaty applies in this case). Do we agree that this image is 50+ years old? Outside of specified portions of the UK, this image is PD, agreed? Even your own source agrees with this:

  Published Crown copyright material has protection for 50 years from date of publication. Those works protected under Letters Patent have perpetual copyright claimed over them despite being published. However, this claim is of very limited jurisdiction. It only applies to the United Kingdom, and even then not to all parts of the United Kingdom.

  Why is it not PD outside the UK? If I am wrong, then when does it become PD (and why)? At the 70 year mark? 120? Never? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not PD because the URAA made it not PD, and there's no reason to believe that the copyright is invalid outside of the jurisdiction of the UK because of the URAA any more than a similar work in the US from 1948 that is copyrighted. URAA granted the copyright; it didn't specify when it expired. From my chair, barring presentation of any evidence that it's PD via some other vehicle, when it goes PD in the US would be the same as any other work from 1948 copyrighted by regular means in the US. Looking at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#General, the closest tag is ((PD-US-1923-abroad)), but that's 25 years earlier than when this was first published. It's not ((PD-US-1996)) as the image was not PD in the UK as of 1996, even by the 50 year metric. We can't apply one of the author tags, because we don't know the death date of the author. ((PD-EU-no author disclosure)) might apply, but that still leaves it copyrighted for the next 9 years. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  URAA made it copyrighted in 1996 by recognizing foreign copyrights and their protections extending to the US (therefore ((PD-Pre1978)) doesn't apply)). In 1998 (two years later) this image became PD everywhere (except as already noted above). Therefore it is PD here in the US. Given the complexities of copyright law, it is not unimaginable that we don't have a specific tag for this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  We're talking past each other at this point. I find myself once again wondering by what vehicle it's in the PD. You say that it became PD in 1998, and the only justification I can find for that is pd-britishgov, but this image isn't covered by that, as it's covered under letters patent, and URAA extended the copyright internationally. British law doesn't have this PD, and neither does international law. Your claim appears invalid to me, and mine appears invalid to you. We're not getting anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Answer: "Published Crown copyright material has protection for 50 years from date of publication." It really is that simple. Letters Patent only extends that protection in a limited capacity: "Letters Patent [works] have perpetual copyright claimed over them, [but it] only applies to...parts of the United Kingdom.". Even in parts of the UK, this is PD. Ergo, it is PD here as well. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it really isn't that simple. You've demonstrated how something not under letters patent would be in the public domain. You're making a claim that someting under letters patent is clear of copyright outside of the UK, but haven't demonstrated how, except by saying that since it's past 50 years, it's clear. But it's not clear, because the 50 years applies to things not under letters patent. You can't ignore URAA. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I didn't ignore URAA. I stated that it certainly applied and extended copyright protection of this image for two years in the U.S. It doesn't extend such protection indefinitely.
  2. "You're making a claim that someting [sic] under letters patent is clear of copyright outside of the UK, but haven't demonstrated how..." No, I quoted the source you originally stated which explicitly states that: "Letters Patent [works] have perpetual copyright claimed over them, [but it] only applies to...parts of the United Kingdom." If they do not have copyright protection in even all parts of the UK, they are now PD as they are past the 50-year mark from publication and are PD in at least some parts of the UK.
  3. "...it's not clear, because the 50 years applies to things not under letters patent." Why? Where do you get that idea? Letters Patent is a specific part of Crown copyright, but it is still Crown copyright. When would copyright on the KJV Bible run out? In parts of the UK, this is still copyrighted, but it is PD in other parts of the same country.

  In short, I have answered all of your questions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you believe you have, and that's fine. I disagree. As I said, we're talking past each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  From Monty Python:

  Person 1 "An argument isn't just contradiction...An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition...'tisn't just contradiction."

  Person 2 "Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!"

  Person 1 "Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'." An argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic naysaying of anything the other person says."

  Person 2 "It is NOT!"

  And here we are. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Many, many times across this project you've accused me of saying something you say is wrong without indicating why. Each time, I've explained why this accusation is wrong, and it falls on deaf ears. As I said, we're talking past each other. You insist you've shown why, and I insist I've shown why not. May I suggest we drop it now unless you feel motivated to insult me again? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll probably be insulted for even suggesting this, as I've been insulted for suggesting it before. But, wouldn't it be a good idea to contact the Worcestershire council and ask their opinion? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While we're on the subject, could you please have these two files deleted: File:Worcester city seal.png and File:Framinghamseal.png --Kudpung (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no reason why. As long as these seals were created prior to 1923 (as it appears they were), ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) or ((PD-1923)) likely apply. Without more information, it is hard to say. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 3 tineye matches - But this may be a case of reuse of the wikipedia image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• All the TinEye matches are of significantly lower resolution than the image here, and have later last modification timestamps. One appears to be an exact copy of a MediaWiki-generated thumbnail. I'd say they're almost certainly copied from Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (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 image 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ambedkarprakash1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

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

• There is reason to believe that these three images may not be free. Their uploader has a history of claiming to be the photographer on professional quality portraiture where he is demonstrably not (see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rajvaddhan and User talk:Rajvaddhan. Per policy, these could be presumptively deleted, but I bring them here for additional review because of the metadata. That said, the metadata itself concerns me. It's obvious that all three of these images were taken at the same time and venue, but there is discrepancy in the dating, as two of the images indicate that they were generated on 23 February 2006, while the other indicates generation on 24 February 2009. Not being that familiar with photography, I'm not sure about forgery in metadata, but this seems a bit hinky. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 15 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MV inside Ecco5.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Screenshot - so skeptical about self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of UST.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo of a notable organization. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is NO actually any soft copy of the flag of the University of Santo Tomas over the Internet. I just used the source as my basis to create an image depicting the flag of the University. --Fire 0592 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only thing about the flag that appears copyrightable would be the image in the center. Given that this institution is 400+ years old, I doubt the central image is anything BUT PD due to age (despite what it is labeled as). That said, I cannot find any history on the logo/coat of arms. If anyone has any thoughts on the matter or source of information, it might be quite useful. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:38, 17 January 2010 (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 image 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Brown College SJ.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Sign/Logo which is primary Focus of the image - Canadian FoP applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the creator of this, I agree. A picture showing the building would be more practical and not offend any sensibilities. Secondarywaltz (talk)

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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GOTransit USBT plan.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Poster- 2D art so FOP not automaticlly applicable Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no way a "copy" could be made from this photograph. Relax! It's only a picture of a poster in a bus station window. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2010 (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 image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep; solution provided. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RonaldMcDonald-trademarkia-originaltrademark1967.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image is not PD-USGov Svgalbertian (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your response. In fact, I am a U.S. intellectual property attorney and made these posts/edits. Furthermore, I am a member of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Bar.^[1] The USPTO itself writes "Records open to the public are searched by users for the purpose of determining ownership for other property rights with respect to patents and trademarks"^[2], and encourages the public to access and broadly disseminate such public releases through its bulk downloads and free search information system^[3] as implemented on Trademarkia. I can tell you that the display and publishing of these marks along with their USPTO source information identifying them as federally registered U.S. trademarks does not violate intellectual property law. In fact, the main goal of the United States intellectual property system is for the government to exchange limited monopoly rights in exchange for disclosure of intellectual property. The cited U.S. registered trademarks, including the Ronald McDonald logo, the Microsoft Logo, the Coca-Cola logo are self-provided by the respective companies/owners to the United States Patent & Trademark Office for the specific purpose of dissemination and publishing as U.S. federally registered logo trademark interests.^[4] The edits and publishing made is consistent with U.S. federal government policy and such use is encouraged to help the public better understand the source of trademark rights. It should be noted that these marks correspond to actual, and documented recordings as registered trademarks at the United States Trademark office, and are not to be confused with other stylistic works of authorship which may embody stylized artistic forms of such logos. Such items may have distinct that copyright interests. However, the published marks on Trademarkia that you challenge are registered U.S. trademarks have been filed to help identify the source of goods and services on which these marks are affixed. Unlike copyright records, for which the U.S. government releases only index information (as opposed to the actual work of authorship)^[5], the cited trademark logos are U.S. federally registered trademarks of these respective companies under United States trademark law.^[6] The goal of U.S. trademark law is to let the public be aware of trademark rights of owners through the open and free publishing of such logo marks in the public record, and for public dissemination, to help identify the source of a particular type of good or service proffered with such marks.^[7] The USPTO itself write "After the information is recorded, the records and associated documents can be inspected by the public and are not confidential, except for documents that are sealed under secrecy orders or related to unpublished patent applications."^[8] As such, these marks when placed in context of identifying their corporate source, not only is consistent with United States intellectual property law, but furthers a substantial and legitimate U.S. government interest. It is in the interest of the United States government and the public to provide free and open dissemination and knowledge of trademark rights so as to have a more informed public and to provide clear attribution to the source of goods and services. My Wikipedia edits and posts of these trademarked logos is consistent with and furthers this public policy. These images are fully public when used to identify the source of goods or services as in my Wikipedia edits. Therefore, these logo marks as currently posted should stay, and the legitimacy for the free publishing of these marks when used to identify specific trademark ownership interests in context of company history is indisputable. If you have further comments, do let me know. --Rabhyanker (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the picture of the original Ronald McDonald as pictured on the United States trademark application filed in 1967 by the McDonald's restaurants.^[9] On Tuesday, September 05, 1967, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for Ronald McDonald. This trademark is owned by McDonald's Corporation of Oak Brook, Illinois.^[10] The description provided to the USPTO for is drive-in restaurant services.The USPTO has given the trademark serial number of 72279672.^[11] The current status of the trademark is registered and renewed.^[12] --Rabhyanker (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you feel the license ((PD-USGov)), which states "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." is appropriate and applies to this case? --Svgalbertian (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A more appropriate wording would be "This work is provided by the owner of the copyright and trademark interest to the public for limited purpose of determining and notifying of federal ownership rights of goods and services associated with a registered U.S. trademark bearing this image. This mark should be used consistently with the spirit of its goal of helping to identify the source of goods and services used in commerce by the owner of this registered trademark, and it should be published with a corresponding link to a federal U.S. trademark associated with its image." Can we create a new wording for future marks that are similarly situated? I dont know how to do this, but if you can help, that would be great. --Rabhyanker (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree with this assessment as the image is no longer under copyright protections (see input below). Furthermore, I disagree with "...it should be published with a corresponding link to a federal U.S. trademark associated with its image." We should link to the SOURCE of the image. If you want to add an additional requirement to the Wikipedia image upload process, I suggest starting an RfC on the subject. Near as I can tell, there is no reason to do this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-tag as ((PD-Pre1978)) and ((Trademark)). It is not the work of a US Federal entity. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that picture is part of vadelism sorry if spelling is not right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.30.13 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (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 image 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Microsoft-logo-trademarkia-1982-earliest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image is not PD-USGov Svgalbertian (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-tag as ((PD-text)) and ((Trademarked)). It is not the work of a US Federal entity. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is unused and is redundant copy of File:Microsoft Logo Historical.svg --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2010 (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 image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep; solution provided. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cisco Bridge Logo1989.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image is not PD-USGov Svgalbertian (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retag with ((PD-US-1989)) and ((Trademark)). This is not the work of a US federal entity. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:35, 17 January 2010 (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.