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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escudo de Armas de Tepatitlan.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Highly unlikely to be user created. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 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, with correction to licensing template. Dianna (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gigi Parrish and Lon Chaney Jr., in Girl o' My Dreams (1934).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Description states 1934 film yet file is tagged ((PD-US)) — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now tagged with PD-not-renewed, which is completely possible for a film from the 1930s... or even into the 60s. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 4 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:BP Latest Landmark.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a montage of images of Batu Pahat in Malaysia. We need to know the source and copyright status of each file in the image in order to host the file on this wiki. Dianna (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the cityscape at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10639865 and the hammer statue at [1]. I'm deleting this. --B (talk) 22:38, 6 April 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 Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altar Passi Church.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User's images were all deleted from Commons for copyright issues: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Melvinx44_rules Eeekster (talk) 05:39, 4 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: Nomination withdrawn. Dianna (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malazgirt Mini Unmanned Helicopter.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader claims it's their own work, but it's present on multiple forums such as this one dating back to 2011. Dianna (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you gave is using a hotlink to our copy of the image. Not only did they get the image here - they're stealing bandwidth from Wikipedia. The 2013 upload was an edit of a 2008 image. --B (talk) 22:44, 6 April 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, with correction to license template. Dianna (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:EFTPOS Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is listed as "public domain because its copyright has expired", but given that it was apparently used by NAB from 1986 to 1991 (less than 30 years ago), the "copyright expired" does not seem likely Mitch Ames (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly ((PD-simple)) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe ((PD-text)) fits better and is more specific. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 06:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Covert Licence I agree that this does not reach the Threshold of originality bar, but think that it should be tagged ((PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia)). LGA _talk^edits 06:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, I didn't even check the country. Shame on me. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 06:10, 6 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, with a correction to the licensing. Dianna (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:EFTPOS Logo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is listed as "public domain because its copyright has expired", but given that it was apparently used by NAB from 1986 to 1991 (less than 30 years ago), the "copyright expired" does not seem likely Mitch Ames (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe ((PD-text)) fits, the same as the above nomination. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 06:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Covert Licence I agree that this does not reach the Threshold of originality bar, but think that it should be tagged ((PD-ineligible-USonly|Australia)). LGA _talk^edits 06:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 06:10, 6 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 Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Passi City Church.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• EXIF: "Copyright (c) 2010 by JUN FUERTE" Eeekster (talk) 05:45, 4 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 Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pintados de Pasi Tribes.jpg (Tattoo).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyright statement in watermark. Eeekster (talk) 05:46, 4 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Places of interest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• A photo montage of images of Bhopal. one of which appears to have a copyright mark in the lower right corner. We need to know the source and copyright status of each image in the montage to be able to host the file on this wiki. Dianna (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, in addition to the one with the copyright mark, the one with the runners comes from here: http://berlin.iaaf.org/news/kind=100/newsid=54616.html ... deleted --B (talk) 11:32, 7 April 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⚡ 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bayraktar B Take Off2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image is a lower resolution image of the file found at http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/specialother-turkey/p41866-baykar-mini-uav.html -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 06:02, 4 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⚡ 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Broh at City Hall.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that PD claim is tru. Eeekster (talk) 09:31, 4 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⚡ 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Setia-nexus.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• A higher-resolution version of this image was posted at [2] two months before this image was uploaded here. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder or that the copyright holder has agreed to release this image under a free license. —Bkell (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The uploader has been blocked since July 2009 for copyright violations. —Bkell (talk) 10:05, 4 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⚡ 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louis Daidone Mugshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No proof that this file is indeed PD. No proof it was taken by the US government. LGA _talk^edits 10:19, 4 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⚡ 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:OnCampus (sitcom) logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Official television show logo, without evidence of permission from copyright holder. Also, unused (had been used at List of On Campus episodes). GrapedApe (talk) 12:47, 4 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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gobind Singh VC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is in the public domain in the United Kingdom because it is an anonymous photo published more than 70 years ago or not published at all for 70 years after it was taken. However, the source tells that it isn't anonymous at all, but taken by Randolph Bezzant Holmes (1888-1973). Since the photographer hasn't been dead for 70 years yet, this isn't in the public domain in the United Kingdom.

Wikipedia uses United States law, not United Kingdom law. In the United States, this is in the public domain if it was published before 1923, but not if it was not published before 1923. It says that the photograph was taken in 1920, but there is no information about whether it might have been published somewhere. It may have been a private photo which wasn't published until it was uploaded to the source website. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is not PD in the United Kingdom and absent proof that it was published before 1923 we have to assume not PD in the US. If someone is willing to make a Fair use claim for this then do so and it can be kept absent that it should be deleted as incorrectly licensed. LGA _talk^edits 19:57, 4 March 2013 (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⚡ 19:36, 13 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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arthur Leyland Harrison VC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is in the public domain in the United Kingdom because it is an anonymous photo which was published more than 70 years ago or which was not published at all for 70 years after it was first published. However, the source only tells by whom it was uploaded to the source website and not where it comes from, so it isn't possible to verify the claim that the photo is anonymous.

Wikipedia uses United States law, not United Kingdom law. This is in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1923, but not in the public domain in the United States if it was first published in 1926 or later. Although the subject of the photo died before 1923, the source doesn't provide any information about the publication history of the photo, so it isn't possible to verify whether it has been published before 1923 or not. For what it is worth, the photo might have remained unpublished until it was uploaded to the www.findagrave.com website. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 4 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) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Water Sympathy LIVE in concert.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• From Facebook: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c55.0.133.133/p133x133/408438_435468859859572_906471187_n.jpg

I can only figure out how to find Facebook's thumbnail image and not to find the page on Facebook where you can see the original image, so I can't tell if the file on Facebook has a higher resolution or not. Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the full image by logging in to Facebook and navigating to the band's photo collection. The one on Facebook is smaller, at 960 x 640. -- Dianna (talk) 20:13, 13 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 Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abe on the net.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader says that the background isn't protected by copyright but doesn't provide any way to verify this claim. Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the source. http://allocer2009.deviantart.com/art/Parchment-Paper-3-264072302 --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Thats right! its free for you to use, change, and morph for your artwork. Purpose for this is to offer many parchments for anyone to utilize. Feel free to download!" Seems fine to me. --B (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Boyd-Rochfort VC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader claims that this photo is in the public domain in the United Kingdom because it is an anonymous photo which was published more than 70 years ago or that it wasn't published at all for 70 years after it was taken. However, the EXIF tells that it isn't anonymous at all but taken in 1925 by a person called Bassano. This means that the copyright doesn't expire 70 years after publication or creation of the photo but 70 years after the death of the photographer.

Wikipedia does not use British law but United States law. Under United States law, this enters the public domain 95 years after publication if published before 1978, or 70 years after the death of Bassano if not published before 1978. There is currently no information about the publication history of the photo, so it isn't possible to tell whether it was published before 1978 or not.

• Having noticed this discussion due to another below, I feel obliged to comment that the statement preceding Stefan2's includes misstatements as to U.S. copyright law regarding term and is a massive oversimplification of the issues of multinational protection taking into account the complexities of the Berne Convention, to which the United States (and, coincidentally, the United Kingdom) finally acceded in 1988. Wikipedia is obliged to look to the laws of all jurisdictions where individuals may access its content, as disseminating material to a country in which that material is protected by copyright constitutes an infringement on the part of both the distributor as well as the individual downloading said information. That much said, copyright term in the United States under the Copyright Act of 1909 was for 28 years, secured by and measured from the date of publication including a copyright notice. Prompt registration of the copyright and deposit of copies with the Copyright Office was required, or the copyright could be invalidated. It was possible to renew the copyright for an additional 28-year term, if an additional renewal registration was made. As an academic exercise, a work published in 1925 would only have been covered by the Copyright Act of 1909 if it included a copyright notice when first published, if registration and deposit was "promptly" made. That copyright would expire in 1953 unless renewed via renewal registration before the 1953 expiration date. If not renewed, such copyright expired and the work passed into the public domain in 1953. If a renewal registration *was* made, and the copyright was alive as of January 1, 1978, then and *only* then do the terms of the Copyright Act of 1976 (as amended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) apply; for works published before January 1, 1978, that term is as stated, i.e., 95 years from the date original copyright was secured (i.e., published), or for works published after January 1, 1978, *either* the life of the author plus 70 years (for an identifiable author), *or*, for anonymous works, 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first. British law, on the other hand, originally vested photographs with a term of 50 years flat (Copyright Act 1911), which changed, for works with a discernable author, to author's life plus 50 years in 1948 (Brussels Act), and was extended to author's life plus 70 years in 1995. Arclem (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you are saying is partially correct, partially wrong.
    1. There is a treaty called URAA saying that you should treat British works as registered, renewed and published with notice if the work was protected by copyright in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1996. This work was protected by copyright in the United Kingdom on that date: the change from 50 years since creation to life+70 years was slightly earlier. Thus, this is protected by copyright for 95 years since publication in the United States. If not published before 1978, different rules apply, but it would still be protected by copyright anyway.
    2. You also state that Wikipedia has to respect the copyright laws of all countries in which the Internet is accessible. This may be true in the European Union (at least with regard to countries which apply the Lugano Convention), but it is less clear that it would be true in the United States. There have been a few cases where European websites have been fined because copyright has been infringed in a different European country. For example, last year, a Norwegian company was fined in Sweden because its Norwegian website hosted in Norway was accessible in Sweden,[3] but it may have been relevant that the claimant lived in Sweden. Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, and it is less certain that it would be possible to fine a US website for violating non-US copyright law. For example, in the case Sari Louis Feraud International v. Viewfinder Inc. someone had taken photos of a fashion show in France and uploaded the images to its website in the United States. It was found that the images violated French copyright law, but the US court refused to fine the website owner, claiming that the use was covered by fair use in the United States. The use wasn't covered by fair use in France, though.
    3. You also state that a person accessing the image commits a crime if the use of the image isn't allowed in the country where the person is accessing the image. This is true in some countries, but other countries allow some kind of private copying, often saying that you may copy copyrighted works for your own personal use, and this would probably often be the case if you try to access the content in a country where the use of the image violates copyright. Besides, it is legal to access streaming content in lots of countries even if the one broadcasting the content is violating copyright law. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think you've misconstrued and/or confused the portions of my commentary including the hypothetical (i.e., "academic exercise") based on whether this photo was published in the U.S. or not under the Copyright Act of 1909) versus its copyright status under British law and thus whether it is protected in the United States according to current law. I am fully aware that the Uruguay Round included the United States reversing its position on copyright revival (or "restoration", to use the statutory term) for foreign works that might otherwise have been considered to be in the public domain, which is part of the reason why my commentary regarding the Copyright Act of 1909 was described solely as exercise to educate the original commentator regarding some of the intricacies of determining term under American copyright law, instead of a blanket "95 years from publication" rule.
    • My reference to British law being controlling in this case is in fact a reference to the Uruguay Round agreements, because of the fact that Britain is the "source country" of this material -- the country of first publication -- and in order for copyright to subsist at all under American law (specifically 17 USC s.104A, which is the provision added to the Copyright Act of 1976 by Congress in acceding to the Uruguay Round agreements), it is necessary that a British copyright subsist in the work. If copyright has expired in Britain, it is no longer eligible for copyright in the United States under section 104A(h)(6)(B).
    • I will state that I was in error in stating that the British shifted to 50 years pma for photographic works in 1948. The Brussels Act changed the definition of "literary and artistic works" to include photographs, but stated that term for these works under the Berne convention was to be that given in the country in which protection was claimed, but not to exceed that in the source country. The British did not accept the changes to the term for photographs from 50 years flat, measured from the date of creation, to 50 years pma at that time. The British shifted -- for protection of photographs -- from 50 years from date of creation to 50 years from first publication on June 1, 1957. It was not until adoption of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that the British shifted for all literary or artistic works to 50 years pma for works with a determined author, or to 50 years after the calendar year of first public availability, for works of unknown authorship, but even at that time, the British rejected the concept of copyright revival (similar to the American experience), and continued the term under earlier law under the CDPA 1988.
    • As such, this particular photograph passed into the public domain in Britain on December 31, 1975, regardless as to who the author was, as it was presumably created in 1925, and remained in the public domain following the CDPA 1988 at least until it was amended effective 1 Jul 1995. The 1995 amendments removed the retroactivity of the term provisions of the 1988 Act and lengthened the term to 70 years pma for works of known authorship or to 70 years following the year of first public availability for works of unknown authorship -- "works for which the authorship cannot be ascertained through reasonable inquiry." These amendments did not change the rules regarding "country of origin", however, and did not revive copyright in any photographs for which Britain and Britain only was the "country of origin". For a copyright in a photograph to be revived, therefore, it had to be subject to copyright in at least one EEA state on July 1, 1995; such a photograph became subject to revived copyright beginning 1 Jan 1996 for 70 years pma for works of determined authorship, or for 70 years following the year of first public availability, for works of unknown authorship.
    • The question as to whether this photograph is subject to copyright revival therefore depends on both of two things -- first, the identification of at least one distinct author whose is alive or who died less than 70 years ago, and second, the identification of at least one EEA country other than Britain qualifying as a "country of origin" under the Berne Convention ... i.e., another country in which this photograph was published within 30 calendar days of its publication in Britain. Without an author who life is known, the longest term possible is 70 years following first publication, which expired in 1995; without another country of origin, this photograph was not even subject to revival in the first place.
    • Since American copyright law only grants protection to works of foreign origin -- under the copyright restoration provisions -- to the same extent that a source country does, whether this is subject to American copyright or not is dependent on the same questions, i.e., whether the photograph is subject to copyright in another EEA country (making this subject to revival under both British and American law). As it stands, since there is no indication that this was published in a country other than Britain, and since the asserted authorship is attributed to the studio, and the actual author remains unidentified, I would strongly suggest that this be regarded as in the public domain.
    • As to the commentary regarding applicability of foreign law to Wikipedia, the question isn't whether Wikipedia could be haled into an American court to face retribution for violation of British (or European) copyright law, as American courts don't have jurisdiction to apply such law, and American courts only have to extend copyright protection under American law to the extent that American copyright reciprocity applies (meaning, essentially, that American defenses apply to allegations of violation of American copyright law stemming from treaty recognition of copyright arising in another country), but since Wikipedia does distribute its content to foreign countries, Wikipedia is subject to being sued in the courts of those countries for violation of their law, and to the potential ramifications on seizure of overseas assets as well as efforts to enforce judgments internationally. Wiki may not care, if it has no overseas assets and it is unlikely that anyone would push the issue to the degree of trying to enforce a foreign judgment here, but that wasn't intended to be the basis of my comments regarding Wikipedia understanding and abiding by the copyright law of foreign jurisdictions; my point was that the term of copyright afforded by a foreign country in a work originating in that country will also determine the term of copyright afforded by the United States. In this respect, the 95-year-from-first-publication rule is, again, inaccurate, as a shorter term afforded in a source country will result in an equivalent term in the United States.
    • As to your final criticism, that in part is answered by my foregoing comment, clarifying what I badly and summarily worded, but I would kindly ask you to point to where I suggested that anything criminal would occur from such a transaction. Please keep in mind that ordinarily, copyright infringement is simply a private, civil action -- criminal copyright infringement is a different beast entirely, and requires either a showing of the infringement being committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, a minimum retail value, or preemptive release of a work being prepared for commercial distribution. 17 USC s.506. Arclem (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are several misunderstandings in the above:
        1. Under the Copyright Duration Directive, Britain had to restore its copyright to the photo if the photo was still protected by copyright in a different European Union country, whether published in that country or not, as long as the author hasn't been dead for at least 70 years.
        2. According to the Ley de 10 de enero de 1879, de la propiedad intelectual, the copyright to all works expired in Spain 80 years after the death of the author. Also note that the law doesn't stipulate any separate copyright term for anonymous works, so it seems that anonymous works also expire 80 years after the death of the anonymous author in Spain.
        3. On 1 July 1995, Bassano had not yet been dead for 70 years, so the copyright was restored in the United Kingdom, because the photo was still protected by copyright in Spain.
        4. As the copyright had been restored in the United Kingdom in time before 1 January 1996, the copyright was restored in the United States.
        5. s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 104A#(a) Automatic Protection and Term (1) (B) only cares about the copyright status in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1996. It doesn't matter whether a life+70 years term expires before or after a publication+95 years term. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • 1. I believe you’re still misapplying the plain language of the law. In order to be eligible for restoration in the United States – and subject to the 95-year-from-publication term under section 104A, a work has to be “not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of the term of protection.” 17 USC s.104A(h)(6). The term “source country” means in the case of a published work, “the eligible country in which the work is first published, or if the restored work is published on the same day in 2 or more eligible countries, the eligible country which has the most significant contacts with the work.” 17 USC s.104A(h)(8)(C). In the case of this photograph, there is no evidence that any country other than Britain is the “source country.” The term of protection in Britain is therefore dispositive as to whether American copyright restoration attaches.
          2. Under British law, particularly the CDPA 1988 as amended by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, the term for copyright – even for a restored work – is that which I have previously indicated, i.e., 70 years pma for works of known authorship, and “70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available.” DCRPR 1995, s.5(1) (amending CDPA 1988, s.12(3)). It is worth noting here, as well, that if authorship does not become known by the end of the copyright term for works of unknown authorship, then copyright expires at the end of the established copyright term for works of unknown authorship and is not revived by later revelation of the actual author. DCRPR 1995, s.5(1) (amending CDPA 1988, s.12(4)). A work is of unknown authorship “if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry.” CDPA 1988 s. 9(5).
          3. British obligation to restore copyright depends on whether the copyright was independently protected in another EEA country, i.e., if another EEA country was a “country of origin” and copyright term under that country’s laws had not expired as of December 31, 1995. See Copinger and Skone James on Copyright secs. 6-51, 6-20. (Copinger includes a specific example: “For example, in the case of a photograph taken in 1918 by an author who died in 1990, such photograph would have had a term of protection under the 1956 Act expiring on December 31, 1968. The photograph would have remained in the public domain in the United Kingdom after August 1, 1989, notwithstanding that its author was still alive. However, on January 1, 1996, such a photograph became entitled to revived copyright in the United Kingdom, (assuming that it remained in copyright in at least one EEA state on July 1, 1995) expiring on December 31, 2060.” Copinger, sec. 6-51.
          4. I’m completely baffled as to why you’re citing to Spanish copyright law, as there is no indication that Spain constitutes a “country of origin.” The Berne Convention – to which Spain has acceded – provides that “protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law.” BC, Art.5(3). Unless Spain qualifies as a “country of origin” via simultaneous publication in Britain & Spain back in 1925 (BC, Art.5(4)(b)), the Spanish law is completely irrelevant in determining term under the domestic law of Britain as the “country of origin.” It’s worth noting that while the original 1879 Spanish law revolved around an 80-year pma term, subsequent amendments – such as the First Transitional Provision of Law No. 22 of November 11, 1987 on Intellectual Property made clear that for anonymous works, the term was 80 years from creation. Also, Spanish Law No. 27 of October 11, 1995 on the Incorporation in Spanish Law of Council Directive (EEC) No. 93/98 (English version available at [www.wipo.int]) provides for a 70 year pma term for works of known authorship and 70 years from date of publication for anonymous works. Id., Arts. 2(1) & (3). This is expressly the Spanish term applicable to photographic artistic works; photographs which do not “constitute original artistic or scientific creations by the author himself” are protected for 25 years from the first of January following the year of creation. Id., Art. 6. There is a provision for the 80-year term – if applicable to photographic works – to apply. Id., Second Additional Provision, para. (1). It is also clear from the language of this statute that Spanish law applies to works originating in Spain or from Spanish authors, with special recognition for EU member states, as opposed to works originating in (and being protected by virtue of) provisions of other nations’ laws regarding copyright. Id., Second Additional Provision, para. (2). Again, there is no indication that Spain is a “country of origin” by virtue of simultaneous publication or by nationality of author, so Spanish law has no bearing on term of copyright. This is doubly true by virtue of the fact that Britain was not a Berne Convention country at the time the British copyright expired: one cannot even cite reciprocal recognition under the Berne convention as a basis for Spanish copyright.
          5. Given that Britain’s only obligation to restore copyright was dependent upon whether another EEA country qualified as a “country of origin” for purposes of the CDPA 1988 as amended by the Duration Regulations, and that there is no evidence that any country other than Britain is a “country of origin,” there was no revived British copyright. Since there was no revived British copyright, American law does not restore copyright to this photograph, either.
          6. I’ll note, as well, that you evidently failed to read my note below regarding the fact that Alexander Bassano -- from Wikipedia's own information -- died in 1913. Bassano, while identified by the National Portrait Gallery as the author, is clearly cannot be the author of a photograph taken in 1925. (The NPG's page itself notes that Bassano opened his studio in 1850, corroborating the view that the NPG is identifying the gallery as the source, and not Bassano himself as the author.) Someone at the Bassano & Vandyk studios clearly took the photo, but who that person is remains unknown. The NPG obtained Bassano & Vandyk's works as a gift from the studio in the 1970's. Since this photograph did not, by December 31, 1995 (70 years after creation/publication), have an attributed author, it was an anonymous work as of that date.
          7. Furthermore, again, your assertion that this photo was protected by copyright in Spain is entirely unsupported by any evidence that Spain was a "country of origin", an essential precondition to the basic term of copyright in Spain to attach rather than Spain's recognition of the British copyright pursuant to treaty obligations. Even if Spanish law attached, and an 80-year term applied, British law states that even where a work is protected in another EEA country, British law would cap the term for an anonymous in Britain at 70 years following then end of the calendar year of creation or publication. DCRPR 1995, s.5(1). That date would be – at the latest – December 31, 1995, meaning that even if this photo was protected under Spanish law, British law would regard a *revived* copyright expired as of January 1, 1996. Since Britain is the “source country” under Section 104A, and since British law – even under your most generous reading of Spanish law – would hold this copyright to have been expired, the American 17 USC s.104A did not revive the copyright, either.
          8. To conclude, there is no evidence that Spain or any other EEA country (or Berne convention country, for that matter) qualifies as a "country of origin" for this work. Even if such protection exists, since the authorship of this work was anonymous at the expiration of the putatively-revived British period of copyright for an anonymous work – the reference to Bassano notwithstanding as he died in 1913 and clearly was not the author – under British law, even a revived copyright would have expired on December 31, 1995. Since the requirement to be eligible for restored copyright under 104A(h)(6) is that the work had to have been protected and not in the public domain in its “source country” – which is Britain under 104A(h)(8) – and since British law continued to regard the copyright in this photograph to have been expired even under the 70-year harmonized term as of December 31, 1995, American law does not provide for restoration of copyright in this photograph. In short, it’s public domain. Arclem (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The National Portrait Gallery tells that Bassano was active at least as recently as 1979,[4] so he died in 1979 or later. Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to this comment, the NPG statement of active years is in reference to the Bassano studio, not Alexander Bassano himself. Alexander Bassano opened his studio in 1850 (as noted on the NPG article), and ultimately died 21 October 1913. See [5]. Therefore not only did Bassano not die after 1979, but he himself didn't take this photograph. I do note that the NPG claims ownership of the copyright (if any) as a gift from Bassano & Vandyk studios in 1974, and that they include licensing options (none free) along with a contact to discuss licensing & copyright issues. Arclem (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not PD, as for Arclem please have a read of TL;DR. LGA _talk^edits 06:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • You stated you wanted a proponent of PD to prove that it is. If you're going to presuppose a position, then refuse to read the refutation of that position ... Arclem (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be very simple, the burden of proof is on theoes uploading or wishing to retain to prove this is PD not to argue points of law, you need to prove that the photographer "Bassano" died prior to 1943 or that it was published in the US on a date that makes it PD. The other path you could consider contacting the London National Portrait Gallery and ask them for details, or consider if you could make a claim of Fair Use. LGA _talk^edits 23:06, 8 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⚡ 03:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tony Ward Photo 11.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Tony Ward (referee).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Two copies of the same photo but with different source information. According to one of the files, the photographer is the uploader. According to the other image, the photographer is someone called Tony Ward. This is unlikely since this is a photo of Tony Ward. The photographer needs to be identified so that it can be verified that the photographer has permitted this to be published under a free licence. Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 4 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⚡ 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arms of Sir Terry Pratchett, OBE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid PD reason. No evidence that it was published at least 50 years ago as required by the licence. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is in the public domain per Her Majesty's Stationer's Office guidelines for when Crown copyright in a governmental document is waived: "5.7 Government documents featured on official departmental Web sites Users will be permitted to reproduce such material without formal licensing or charge except where expressly indicated on the Web site." The referenced URL to the newsletter placed on the College of Arms' website -- an "official departmental Web site" -- does not include such an indication, and the picture herein is taken entirely from the referenced newsletter. As such, no licensing or length of time from publication is required to reproduce this image. See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/future-management-of-crown-copyright.pdf for the details of said waiver of license. Arclem (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Commons:Template:Nonderivative. Also, the permission seems to require that you are first a user of the website, whatever that means. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it took me all of about 5 mins on Google to find this which states under things that don't form part of the UK government open licencing are "logos which identify a government departmental or a public sector organisation, Coats of Arms or Crests, and the Royal Arms , unless they form an integral part of a dataset or document (and are shown accurately in their context in that dataset or document" so this is NOT PD. LGA _talk^edits 07:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "open license" of a copyright and "waiver" of a copyright. Waiver means that copyright no longer attaches and the item is in the public domain; open license means that the copyright is retained by the owner (the Crown in this case), but license is freely given according to certain terms. Once waiver is given, it cannot be revoked; the item and its derivatives are in the public domain at that point.66.140.97.137 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement you quoted doesn't tell that anything is in the public domain, though. It just says that users^[who?] may produce copies of the works to which the statement applies^[which?]. Producing copies of something is not the same thing as modifying it. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@.137/Arclem the burden is on you to prove the image is as you claim PD, I am not seeing any cause to assume it is, firstly the source you quote talks about documents and not images, the source I have provided explicitly excludes Coats of Arms, the comments you make about the waiver "cannot be revoked" seem to be your opinion and not based on any evidence, as I see nothing in that waiver (if it does apply) which was issued in 1999, that would stop the waver being adjusted so as to have the effect of changing it for uses after such a change. LGA _talk^edits 05:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming, as you do, that waiver of copyright -- i.e., the act of placing a document in the public domain -- can be withdrawn at will, the actual Open Governmental License itself which you reference does not include a blanket exclusion of applicability of the license to Coats of Arms generally, but only those associated with a governmental entity unless copied in full, original context. As private arms, and not "departmental or public sector organization logos, crests, and the Royal Arms", this image -- adapted from the document originally referenced and cited -- falls within the OGL. So rather than argue about whether it's public domain or not, I'm perfectly happy changing the attribution to reflect it being licensed under the OGL, as it accomplishes the same task. The specific wording of the OGL -- includes the following:

"The Licensor grants you a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive license to use the Information subject to the [attribution, non-misrepresentation, and privacy protection] conditions below. . . .

You are free to: copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information; adapt the Information; exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application. . . .

This licence does not cover the use of: personal data in the Information; Information that has neither been published nor disclosed under information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider; departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset; military insignia; third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license; Information subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and design rights; and identity documents such as the British Passport." (emphasis added)Arclem (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things to consider here, firstly the Open Government Licence's own page states it is a Creative Commons compatible one so rather than this image being PD IF it is covered it would be a CC licence (and NOT PD). Secondly it would appear from other pages that Arms are or could be excluded from such a licence. The simple way to resolve this is to assume it is a CC style licence and ask someone from the College of Arms to confirm via e-mail to WP:ORTS that it is indeed covered by the Open Government Licence if they do then the ORTS team will put the correct licence on it if they don't it will be deleted. LGA _talk^edits 07:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to fairuse personal arms of a subject of a biography article, so should appear in the article -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as it stands such a fair use claim would fail on #8 as its presence does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. LGA _talk^edits 05:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should delete the entire section on the personal arms of Terry Pratchett from the article, when you get rid of the image. That section is not useful without the arms themselves. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be. LGA _talk^edits 07:22, 7 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, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ridder playing Saxophone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Previously published at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7eFVd2T_vc&list=UUEyvoJmJxae77j9QfMzEPyQ&index=6 and unlikely to be the work of the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 22:17, 4 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.