| < February 5 | February 7 > |
|---|
Contents
- 1 February 6
- 1.1 File:Number1albumcover.jpg
- 1.2 File:Aisa hota hai poster.jpg
- 1.3 File:Capbadge.jpg
- 1.4 File:Centre of Barrhill C1930.jpg
- 1.5 File:First Government House shortly after construction in 1883.jpg
- 1.6 File:Sketch of member of Cynanchum genus by Anna Murray Vail.jpg
- 1.7 File:OberlinChurch WAStateArchivesImage.jpg
February 6
edit
- 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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Number1albumcover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The photograph is properly licensed, but there's a copyright on the toy. Dianna (talk) 01:09, 6 February 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⚡ 00:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Aisa hota hai poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is film poster artwork. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 6 February 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) 22:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Capbadge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I am skeptical about this being a self-created image as it appears to be an organisational crest. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 6 February 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⚡ 00:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A 1930 photo of UK origin is at the very least PD-old-70, I am skeptical that the original was taken by the up-loader, but willing to be proven wrong :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All photos taken in the United Kingdom in 1926 or later are protected by copyright in the United States per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. On the file information page, it says that the uploader took the photo in 1930, meaning that the uploader was born in 1930 or earlier. On the uploader's user page, he lists his age as "40-something", meaning that he was born after 1930. This is a contradiction. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 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) 22:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:First Government House shortly after construction in 1883.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- 1883 photo without evidence of publication. It says that the photographer is unknown, but that the photographer died in 1948 at the latest. If the uploader has some information about the death year of the photographer, this suggests that the photo isn't anonymous at all.
If unpublished and anonymous, then the photo entered the public domain in the United States in 2004.
If unpublished but not anonymous, then the photo enters the public domain in the United States 70 years after it was taken (in 2019 at the latest). Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 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. Dianna (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It says that it is unpublished and that it is in the public domain because it was published before 1923. If it is indeed unpublished, then it can't have been published before 1923. The copyright term for unpublished works is life 70 years, and it says that the artist died in 1955, which is less than 70 years ago. Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sketch is dated May 25, 1899. Author is known, and died in 1955. Sketch was never published. Copyright expires in 2025. -- Dianna (talk) 22:25, 21 February 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, We don't have enough information to accurately determine the copyright status of this image, so it has to be deleted. The building still exists (it was not torn down in 1902 as claimed; it was constructed in 1902) and therefore a freely available image could readily be created. The building is at 1515 Lafayette St., Steilacoom and is visible on Google Street View. Dianna (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PD-US license has been claimed on the basis that the file is a state government public record on a website that is "public domain". However, public records are not necessarily in the public domain, and the website information advises that some contents on the website may be copyrighted. The building in the photo was torn down in 1902 (see caption for Buildings014 on another website), so the image is likely to be PD-US based on its age. Orlady (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the actual source of the image - http://www.sos.wa.gov/history/cities_detail.aspx?i=20 - the page says "Information is provided by Rudy Horst of the Oberlin Congregational Church in Steilacoom" so presumably, the photo is from a photo album at the church. Whatever license may or may not exist on the state's websites is irrelevant. So if the author died before 1933 and it was never published until after January 1, 2003, it is public domain. Otherwise, it's copyrighted. Probably, the church would need to be contacted for permission (and, maybe a higher resolution version). --B (talk) 22:46, 24 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.