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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sc wall 175.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• copied from rights reserved web site http://www.spfldcol.edu/home.nsf/welcome with no evidence of permission; uploader inactive for three years W Nowicki (talk) 02:29, 10 May 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 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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gilbert MacKereth WO 372-13 medal card.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is originally from a pdf file in the DocumentsOnline section of The National Archives' website (fee usually required to download the document), their copyright statement http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/copyright.htm specifically states that such documents are under Crown Copyright David Underdown (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is of a simple form. Simple forms are ineligible for copyright. Even if the image were eligible for Crown Copyright, that crown copyright is long expired. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Possibly you are correct on the form issue, but I don't believe you are on the the issue of Crown Copyright, the record was unpublished until within the last five years when, when the medal card collection went on Documents Online (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=4022832), and made publically availble at the absolute earliest in 1953 per http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/ExternalRequest.asp?RequestReference=WO+372%2F13, and by my reading of the full copyright info in http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/pdf/copyright_full.pdf particularly, the flow chart at on page 13 (Appendix 1) places it firmly in copyright. David Underdown (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting. That's a different flowchart than the one I found linked on Commons. It would probably be beneficial to have this linked somewhere prominently there. All that aside though, it is still not copyrightable because it is fundamentally not a creative work. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps moot now anyway, original uplaoder has created a transcription of the card and uploaded that in its place. (Though if the original were eligible for copyright, that would presumably still be a derivative work?) David Underdown (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf for the copyright flow diagram? Note that that on applies only to artistic works, which clearly is not the case here. The info on Crown Copyright seems to imply that all works of crown servants are considered copyright, even if not "creative". David Underdown (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Original uploader ahs apparently received confirmation that the image is PD and OK to reproduce. Have suggested that he forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org jsut to cover all bases. David Underdown (talk) 13:28, 11 May 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 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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PLAYA MARSELLA NICARAGUA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• THIS IMAGE IS UNFREE. IT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. PLEASE, REFRAIN FROM USING IT/ ESTA IMAGEN NO ES DE USO LIBRE. ESTÁ PROTEGIDA POR LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR DE SU TITULAR Q. URTECHO Y ESTÁ AQUÍ POR UN ABUSO. POR FAVOR, ABSTÉNGASE DE UTILIZARLA. Quilalí (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Metadata is present, and there is no evidence provided by the nominator other than his or her own assertions. The uploading editor does have a few other nominated images that were previously deleted, but after reviewing them, the evidence for these being unfree seems similarly shaky. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Also listed at PUF on April 1, April 17 and May 9. May 9 is still open, but April 1 and April 17 were both "keep"s. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:54, 21 May 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.