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The result of the discussion was: Keep - As withdrawn by nom. Skier Dude (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PikiWiki Israel 7485 statue quot;lone cypressquot; in tel aviv - from Commons.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Bot-transferred from Commons after it was deleted there [1] because "Original owner demands removal". Was sourced to a third-party free website, but can no longer be found at that location [2]. I can't reconstruct what happened about the license; accessible discussion on Commons [3] doesn't make it clear whether there was a valid license and it was merely retracted or whether the license claim on the third-party site was false to begin with.

Bot transfer was ostensibly made "as a fair-use candidate", but NFC is obviously out of the question here. For clarification: we are dealing only with the photographic copyright; the sculptural artwork shown in the picture falls under F.o.P. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: Some general background information may be helpful: this image was collected via the Wikimedia-Israel project Pikiwikisrael and uploaded to Commons by account commons:User:Pikiwikisrael on February 24, 2010. As their mode of collection seems to be a bit "random" (or due to other reasons), not so rarely the uploading account himself after some time requests speedy deletion by their default phrase "Original owner demands removal". As a Commons admin (uninvolved in Pikiwikisrael) I (and possibly other colleagues) have usually fulfilled these requests more generously (provided file was unused), due to the special nature of the Pikiwikisrael project.
The file in question had originally been licensed as ((cc-by-2.5|צילום:ד"ר אבישי טייכר)).

The speedy-requester did not remove that license. Whether it has to be considered invalid due to the alleged "Original owner demands removal" is another question. I put the image into the fair-use-delete process on Commons as it was then in use on :en. You might either ask the Pikiwikisrael people directly whether "fair-using" this image would be detrimental to the Pikiwikisrael project or simply put it through the fair-use process on :en as of unclear copyright status and process according to local SOP. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• retract / close: per discussion at commons:User talk:Matanya, there apparently was no real problem about the license. Image is likely to be restored on Commons soon; then the local copy can be speedied. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Delete as F8 The file seems to be free, so no reason for deletion. If restored on Commons, there is no need to keep a local copy, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2012 (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 clarified dates. Skier Dude (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enrique Meza Jr Toluca Player 2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Professional sports image where the authorship claims (owned by the subject, date taken is the upload date) don't seem correct. Peripitus (Talk) 10:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• My mistake, please. Being a professional family friend, this photo of Enrique Maximiliano Meza Salinas was taken by me in 2001, and a paper copy was given to Enrique which he gave me back to scan and release into public domain under a free license for use on Wikipedia. Therefore the date taken is quite different from the upload date. Thank you! Lord777 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2012 (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: 'kept with dates amended. Skier Dude (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enrique Meza Playing for Toluca.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Own work when this is a professional image, and the subject is allegedly the uploader. This does not seem plausible. Peripitus (Talk) 10:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake, please. Being a professional family friend, this photo of Enrique Maximiliano Meza Salinas was taken by me in 2001, and a paper copy was given to Enrique which he gave me back to scan and release into public domain under a free license for use on Wikipedia. Therefore the date taken is quite different from the upload date. Thank you! Lord777 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2012 (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: Keep - postcards were generally published shortly after a photograph was taken. If the image was published before 1941, it is free in the US as well as India. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vintage Postcard of Gateway of India.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Delete: This image was unfree but the licence has been changed and the source http://www.oldindianphotos.in/2011/01/vintage-postcard-of-gateway-of-india.html removed. It is unclear if this image complies with the PD-India tag and is also free in the US as there is no indication of the date of publication. The Indian government ownership claim is also dubious without evidence. The postcard looks old enough but we need some more verification. If in doubt it must be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This claims that the image date is unknown but its creation date is somewhere in 1930's. The photo looks old, so why not assume good faith and keep it. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I tagged it for delayed deletion as it is without source Bulwersator (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added back the summary with source. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If it really is from the 1930s, it should be fine. If I've understood things correctly, pre-1941 photos were in the public domain in India on the URAA date. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2012 (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johnny Kent.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Original photograph taken by an employee of the British government. Image found on: http://www.battle-of-britain.com/BoB2/Battle_personnel/Profiles/RAF/menofthebattle_raf.htm" but http://web.archive.org/web/20080509065627/http://www.battle-of-britain.com/BoB2/Battle_personnel/Profiles/RAF/menofthebattle_raf.htm is without any information about source of photo Bulwersator (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original photograph is in the Imperial War Museum and is released as a public domain image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I see http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/placeholder_mid.png instead of photo - is it problem related to my computer? Bulwersator (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just that the photo is now no longer on the site, just the placeholder; but it is the original photo's location and the photo is still available at the Imperial War Museum, just not in a download. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Is it possible to confirm that it is the same photo? Page is not indexed in IA Bulwersator (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description appears to be the same (except for a juxtaposition of the squadron crest that was mentioned); unfortunately, the original photograph is no longer posted. Other than purchasing a copy from the Imperial War Museum, it would be difficult to be assured it was the same photograph, however, from the description it could very well be this one. It was a very commonly used image that appears in his autobiography on the spine of the book as well as inside the centre section of photographs. My edition does not identify the source of the photograph but nearly every photograph is clearly from official RAF or Imperial War Museum files. In the John A. Kent article, the three other wartime photos used in the article also came from the same source: the Imperial War Museum digital files. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

To complicate matters, I have located another photograph that looks different but could also be the IWM photo, as I have noticed that the figure is standing to the right of the squadron insignia which is what the IWM description says, so now, a dilemma: replace the contested one with the new image or point to a different source for the first image, Johnny Kent's own book? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• No Claim image has turned into public domain, as one website has it at an earlier date. Obtund^Talk 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A British photo from this period can only be in the public domain in two cases: if it was made by the British government, or if it was first (or concurrently) published in a country with a short copyright term, such as Italy or the United States (if no © notice). This page tells that one photo was taken by the British government, and that photo is currently in the public domain. However, there are at least two different candidates for the IWM photo, and there is no evidence that this photo is the one mentioned at the IWM website; it could be the other photo instead. It is thus not possible to conclude that this photo was taken by the British government. One could maybe visit the IWM and ask to see the image, but it seems that no one has done this so far. Furthermore, there is no evidence of publication anywhere, so there is no evidence that it was published concurrently somewhere. The conclusion is that it isn't possible to determine if this file is in the public domain or not without more information. If it is not a British government image, and if it wasn't published concurrently somewhere, then there is someone (unclear who) who holds the copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2012 (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: keep as license changed & FuR added. Skier Dude (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lorenz Hackenholt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No proof that photo was published before 1942 ("The copyright of this work has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship") Bulwersator (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Or published before 1926, and anonymous (which it must be to be free in the US). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I googled for this photo. Many websites claim that it was taken in 1940 and I found two claiming "somewhere around 1940-1942". Thus copyrighted in Germany on the URAA date, so unfree in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have changed the photo to fair use, so there is no need to delete the file.Hoops gza (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it just needs to be deleted from List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust since it fails WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFG in that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:01, 8 June 2012 (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. To be PD in the US, it must be have been published before 1923, or the author must have died before 1926 for URAA. He would have been 49 in 1923, which, while a bit old for his appearance, would not have been completely unreasonable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arthur martin-leake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "From my personal collection; the image is also more than 50 years old" but "falls into the public domain 70 years after it was created". Bulwersator (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that the author died before 1926 or that it was published before 1923 (URAA requirement). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - this image is almost certainly of expired crown copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep too - it appears that the latest that it would have been taken is 1918 (given years of active service), if author unknown, it would be crown-c after 1988. Skier Dude (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete image is older than 50 years, but how many, unless information is given, the file will be deleted Obtund^Talk 23:23, 15 June 2012 (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: Keep - a civil war era photo of a general was probably distributed (i.e., published) near the time of its creation. Without evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume it's public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

File:Edward Johnson (general).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that this image was published prior to January 1, 1923. Bulwersator (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The photo is from 1861 according to an unsourced claim on the file information page. However, since the claim is unsourced, one would presumably just have to assume that it taken at some point before 1874 (based on the death of the subject of the photo). Presumably, it was either published shorty after it was taken, or not published at all. It would be protected by copyright if the first publication was at some point between 1923 and 2002, which seems unlikely for a 19th century photo. It would also be protected by copyright if it was never published before 2003 and the photographer was still alive by 1942, but this would require that the photographer stayed alive for at least about 70 years after taking the photo, which is also unlikely. Keep, I suppose. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2012 (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No evidence that it was published before 1996 Bulwersator (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The criteria you give are wrong. It is free in the United States if it was taken before 1976 and published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice. The man died in 1970, so it was obviously taken before 1976 (and is thus free in Italy). It is unfortunate that many old photos are uploaded to Wikipedia without any evidence of publication since the United States copyright term largely depends on the year of first publication. Could be either a family photo (which are usually unpublished) or a press photo (which are usually published), or any other kind of photo. If not published before 1 March 1989, the US copyright expires after life of photographer+70 years at the earliest. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Gen.Gariboldi is an official italian army photo, released in 1942 togheter with a video newsreel after a visit of Gen.Gariboldi to the 120th Artillery Rgt on the Russian Front. I suppose it could be usefull to explain the Italian Army pictures release procedure, to avoid confusion about other italian wartime pictures.
1)- All "official" italian wartime pictures and videos were produced by the Italian Army (or Navy, or Air Force) operators, there were not independent photoreporters owning the proprerty of their own individual pictures (as could be for - as an example - an US "Life" magazine reporter). The pictures/videos were then released as public domain to the press direcly by the Army (or Navy, or Air Force), and could be used freely. As such, when you find an official Italian wartime picture it is either scanned from a book, magazine etc published in wartime, or it comes from the Italian Army (or Navy, or Air Force) archives, that still have copies of all the wartime released pictures and provides them on request. In both cases, the picture have been released to public domain by the owner (i.e. the Army). 2)- Even if it was not so (and it was), Italian laws are quite clear about when a "generic" picture (i.e. not an artistic work) becomes public domain. Generic pictures becomes public domain for the Italian Law after 20 years from *creation*, so this particular picture (taken in late summer 1942) have been in the public domain since 1962 (about 50 years ago!) anyway. For a more detailed description of the Italian copyright laws, see rhe following infobox. Best regards, and for further contacts please address your messages on my Italian Wiki page at [[4]] as I seldom open my en.Wiki page. Best regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC) ((PD-Italy))[reply]

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:ItalyDefense disagrees with the above: the permission for army photos only applies for journalistic purposes. I do not oppose the claim that the photo is in the public domain in Italy since it is more than 20 years old. However, Wikipedia requires that the photo is in the public domain in the United States, which has different laws. In particular, the United States copyright law requires that the photo was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. However, there is currently no evidence of any publication. If not published before 1 March 1989, then the United States copyright lasts for 100 years longer than the Italian one. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2: the US copyright formalities apply only to items published in the US. For items published abroad, the relevant rule is must have been in the public domain in the country of origin at the URAA date, i.e. 1996. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. US copyright formalities also apply to items first published outside the United States, but are only relevant if the work was out of copyright in the source country on the URAA day. See WP:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stefan, I friendly and respectfully beg to disagree. You say:"the permission for army photos only applies for journalistic purposes", and I have absolutely no trace of this limitation anywhere. Maybe is so for the US armed forces, but not for the Italian ones. About the other point, as I said the picture was taken as part of a wartime newsreel (if you do any search on internet for images about Gen.Gariboldi), you will certainly find some other frames of the same series. As such, it was "published" (i.e. released in the cinemas as a newsreel, and as pictures to the press) during 1942. About copyright notices, there wouldn't be any copyright anyway, as the operator was from the military (so the rights ot the pictures/films etc he took were not his own, but of the Army/Navy or Air Force, who did realease them for public use anyway). Neither I can really understood the nature of the problem: even admitting that by the US laws the image is not copyright free (and IMHO it is not so), the only one entitled to complain would be the Italian Army ... who would *not* be legally entitled to complain as its copyright did not existed to start with (as all its wartime propaganda pictures were released to the public domain), and even if it had existed to start with according to the Italian Law it had expired more than half a century ago!!! Yes. it's really a bit hard for me to get were the problem is. That said, and of course in the most friendly and relaxed terms, it is not a particularly pressing matter for me. I hope the whole issue could be handled in terms of common sense, otherwise do as you think better: en.Wikipedia survived for years without a picture of Gen.gariboldi, I'm rather positive it will continue to happily survive for years without it :) The only ones to be damaged will be the en.Wikipedia users (and not that much, as they could easily find pictures of Gen.Gariboldi elsewhere on internet without any problem). All the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. I enclose again the related copyright box, that was probably mistakenly removed. --Arturolorioli (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC) ((PD-Italy))[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: Keep Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "life of the author plus 100 years." - without info about author, source is dead, in the worse case author made photo in 1902, was still alive in 1913 and photo is still copyrighted. Bulwersator (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of publication. If unpublished, it is copyrighted for life+70 years or creation+120 years. May have been created less than 120 years and the photographer isn't identified so it isn't possible to tell if the photographer was dead by the end of 1941 either. The man on the photo looks like someone who could be anything between 35 and 65 years old and he died at the age of 64 so it might have been taken at the end of his life. Source is not dead by wrong[5] but provides no information about the source of the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this one seems completely obvious. It's a civil war era image (see here and other places) dating from the 1860s. Clearly public domain - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is better; it indicates a year of creation. Photos taken in the 1860s are almost always in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2012 (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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queen Elizabeth II official diamond jubilee photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Undated photograph; no direct source given; if taken from the British Monarchy's website the photos are usually copyrighted, or at least restricted to non-commercial use only. DrKiernan (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is only a ((bsr)) link to a Facebook page belonging to someone claimed to be called "The British Monarchy". If this Facebook user is related to the British Crown, the photo would be under crown copyright and so Queen Elizabeth II would have to be 35 years old or younger in order to qualify for ((PD-UKGov)). She looks much older than that. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it looks as if the Facebook account is in fact genuine (I assume it would rather quickly be shut down if they were impersonating the Queen in such an obvious way), I can find no release statement for the image on the Facebook account. This has little to do with who the Facebook account owner is, but a lot with the common misperception that putting something on one's Facebook page means putting it in the public domain, which it does not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 31 May 2012 (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.