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 indication that image is PD in US. Deleted by Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Joe-Fortes-beach.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The photographer died in 1973, so the license template is incorrect. The image may be in the public domain in its source country (Canada) but I'm pretty sure it's still copyright in the United States; the copyright would expire 70 years after the death of the author (in 2043). Images must be PD in both their source country and in the US to be eligible to be hosted on this wiki. Dianna (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Archives who is the guardian of the image has it listed on there website as and I quote.

Rights area, Related Right, Copyright status = Public Domain.Vancouver Archives Item : CVA 677-440 - [Joe Fortes]

So if the owner of the image (City of Vancouver Archives) says it is public domain then how isn't it public domain. Or Shall I get confirmation from a archivist at the City of Vancouver to validate any claims of ownership? Coffeerob (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the image is in the public domain in Canada. The problem, though, is that images must be PD in both their source country and in the US (where our servers are) to be eligible to be hosted on this wiki. The Commons:Hirtle chart shows more details about when items fall into the public domain in the United States. -- Dianna (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are referencing Commons:Hirtle chart says it doesn't exist. I can't formulate a response or even understand your point if I can't see what you are referencing. Coffeerob (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diana is referring to Commons:Hirtle chart. Chick Bowen 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Canadian rules say that any photo taken before 1949 is in the public domain in Canada. This was taken before 1949, so it is in the public domain in Canada. Wikipedia uses USA rules, though. Under USA rules, this is in the public domain if it was first published before 1924 or if it was published at some point between 1924 and February 1989 without a copyright notice. Unfortunately, it doesn't say whether this is a published photo or not. If unpublished, then the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 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 - this recording not shown to be out of copyright Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Silōs anthem.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The source video at YouTube is a standard YouTube license, which is not a compatible license with the file being hosted on this wiki. Dianna (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose that means that the file is not clearly in the public domain and therefore not suitable to be on Wikipedia. When I uploaded it, I was under the impression that its authorship of Giacomo Puccini, done over a hundred years ago, put it in the public domain. Jackwolfroven (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The music can be in the public domain while a specific recording by a specific orchestra can be copyright. -- Dianna (talk) 02:50, 21 March 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⚡ 04:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Fire Department, 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid reason given for claim of public domain. Eeekster (talk) 04:44, 11 March 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: Keep. Dianna (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pablo Picasso, 1909, Brick Factory at Tortosa, oil on canvas, 50.7 x 60.2 cm, The State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This does not show it was "published in the United States before 1923" so as to be PD. It shows it was published in Germany. LGA _talk^edits 11:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Copyright tag for this image has been modified to the more general PD-US-1923-abroad. As such, this image is perfectly suited to Wikipedia rules for the publication of images. This work by Pablo Picasso was published abroad before 1923, and thus can have no independent copyright in the United States. It is simply a faithful reproduction of an old, public domain, 2-dimensional work of art published outside the United States prior to 1923. See the exact page in the 1920 publication here, or chose an alternative means of viewing the book here. Coldcreation (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before 1923. It doesn't matter whether the publication was in the United States or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:BeckhamPSG2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No proof Zimbo licences it's images in this way and on the linked page they credit "FameFlynet Pictures". - This could be a F9. LGA _talk^edits 11:51, 11 March 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⚡ 04:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myakka skunk ape 2.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• We have an OTRS ticket on this, but no indication of the rationale behind Barkasy and Coleman's copyright claim. Our article says the picture is anonymous, in which case the terms listed at Commons:Anonymous works would apply, and, since it was claimed to be created in 2000, it will be copyrighted for a long time. Chick Bowen 17:08, 11 March 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⚡ 02:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The user is uploading a number of non-free images and has been warned multiple times. Though I cannot find exact source of this particular image, it surely belongs to some non-free source such as Life or Hello magazines. Please see images here. It is highly improbable that a high school student was present at the occasion more than a decade ago to take such image. Samar ^Talk 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also all other uploads of the user have similar issues. I cannot find the exact image for speedy but they are most certainly not his own work. [1], [2], [3].

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.