The result of the discussion was: Keep all except paintings. The newspaper publications were PD-US-not renewed. Copyright is inherited, and uploader indicated that heirs wished to release copyright on first image. The rest are paintings and the uploader indicated that there is no intent to release copyright. Consensus is that they fail WP:NFC. (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 21:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Various non-free files being used in
Gladys Aller. A number of these files may actually be old enough to be converted to
pubic domain using {{
PD-US-no notice}} or another similar template since they appear to have been first published in 1937. Others such as the the various works of arts probably do not satisfy
WP:NFCC#3a and
WP:NFCC#8 as well as possibly
WP:NFCC#1. Change them to public domain, if they're old enough.
-- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't really understand all these points, I'm afraid. There is no desire from the heirs of Gladys Aller to make reproduction of her works copyright free or in the public domain. Why cannot they just be used to illustrate text for an historical person? As for the clippings from the newspaper - one of the papers, at least, no longer exists, and it is unknown if they were ever subsequently reproduced, although at least one of the artists in the photos - Fletcher Martin is a well known figure. There are no online sources to reference for these photos. That is a problem when an artist died before the internet was invented. The only specific image available online is through the Metropolitan Museum of Art and it is specifically stated that it cannot be reproduced (and wasn't on the page - only linked.) But what good is an article about an historical figure - a visual artist, if the reader cannot see examples of her work?
I can add more specific text to the article referencing the actual paintings as representative of her style at a particular period, if that would help. BlueWind13 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding usage of the photo of the artist File: Gladys Aller Painter - the heirs have given permission for its free use and reproduction. They would like a photo of their mother to be available online and for editorial use. BlueWind13 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Even so, what the heirs may or may not want is secondary to what the copyright holder, living or dead, has a right to— and copyright extends beyond death for some time. Sadly, this is what sometimes happens to images where the copyright holder died before being able to release an image under a suitable license: without any statement of permission or copyright transfer, we must assume the copyright holder intended to retain the full copyright and delete the image from Wikipedia and Commons. It longer matters what he or she might have wished— all that matters is what we can give evidence of, and without evidence, we err on the side of caution, which means we cannot host the file(s). KDS4444 ( talk) 13:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-simple Majora ( talk) 03:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free as it's mostly a text logo against a largely single colour background. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is under non-free terms as it's a text logo? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-ineligible-USonly - the license of the Commons file is questionable (too many of these logo cross-wiki-uploads tend to turn out to be copyvio) and we don't know about Irish TOO Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free as it's a simple text logo with one gemoetric element (right). Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this image is 'non-free' as the equivalent at Commons Commons:File:Photo of Bekir Chobanzade in poetry collection "Boran".jpg was under a free license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a third party logo design, which would need a seperate license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused, Fan-art? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a movie poster, so I am not seeing why it's self. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Refferal, as according to a note on the file page, it's misidentified. Move to commons with a rename? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete - obsoleted by File:Milton Malsor twin plaques.png. Kelly hi! 13:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete - current version obsoleted by File:Milton Malsor twin plaques.png. Older version is on Commons as File:James Harrington Blue Plaque 1.jpg. Kelly hi! 13:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep as is Majora ( talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me this memorial should be covered by {{ FoP-UK}}, as it is located in premises open to the public. Pinging Stefan2. Kelly hi! 13:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
{{photo of art|{{PD-self|date=June 2010}}||{{PD-old-100}}|pdsource=yes}}
as the license and call it a day.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
10:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
No source provided; probably copyvio / unused Jc86035 ( talk • contribs) Use {{ re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unactionable. Image is grandfathered. Majora ( talk) 01:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
User was advised to update the details at least 3 years ago and nothing happened in respect of this image. Credits a photgrapher, but it's not clear if it's the uploader. {{ uw-imgclaim1}} left on talk page but given the inactivity, FFD refferal. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused, User profile photo ( as given name doesn't seem to be an article subject)? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
(In the absence of a forum for technical concerns), This image is unused, and whilst hi-res appears to be ever so slightly blurred/out of focus in my view. FFD for a second opinion. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep as non-free thus Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Games screenshots, cannot be own work. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused, Upload log check suggests this was part of set many of which have now been deleted. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; the change in author information makes it unclear whether the license applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Uploader seemingly changed the attribution for this image, So who actually took the photo? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicensing to Photo of art with the current license as photographer side and PD-old-100 as the art license, to recognize the copyright status of the painting Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Assuming Good faith, given that this is a PD painting, and in use. The question here is whether this needs a different license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Wrong venue Majora ( talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This uses a non-free file format, but seems to be linked from a reference desk disscussion. Any takers for converting this to something that can be put on Commons? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-art Majora ( talk) 04:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying whhy this is considered non-free, when the art which is the subject of the image looks to be very old. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-Art|{{PD-old-70}}}}
or {{Licensed-PD|{{PD-old-70}}|{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}}}
considering that the artwork, as indicated by the source, is from the "early 18th century".
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
09:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free as it seems to be a text cover. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-ineligible-USOnly Majora ( talk) 03:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is tagged as non-free locally, but simple at Commons, Is the Edge decision being applied locally (given the Cr design to the left of the logo). Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this logo is non-free as it's one geometric element and text. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free, given that the equivalent file at Commons is under a 'free' license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free as it's a text logo (albiet a slightly stylised font). Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-ineligible-USOnly Majora ( talk) 03:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free, as it's mostly text or simple geometric shapes. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this image is non-free, when it may lie below threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this logo is non-free, as it Text plus one geometric element. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep as non-free. Deleted on Commons. ( non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 21:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free, as it's a mostly text logo Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Orphan. Was removed from Cultural area because accuracy is disputed; appears to be original research and thus unlikely to be useful. -- Beland ( talk) 18:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Queying why this image is non-free when the Commons Equivalent is considered to be under an expired Croat/Yugoslav copyright. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-USonly - not clear whether the file is free in the Netherlands and the identical Commons file is questionably licensed Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this logo is non-free, given it's mostly text or simple geometric elements. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-USonly - not clear whether the file is free in the countries of origin Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free, given that it's a mostly text logo. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying as this appears to be packaging arwtork, no contest that it's likely to be the uploaders photo. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep all except paintings. The newspaper publications were PD-US-not renewed. Copyright is inherited, and uploader indicated that heirs wished to release copyright on first image. The rest are paintings and the uploader indicated that there is no intent to release copyright. Consensus is that they fail WP:NFC. (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 21:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Various non-free files being used in
Gladys Aller. A number of these files may actually be old enough to be converted to
pubic domain using {{
PD-US-no notice}} or another similar template since they appear to have been first published in 1937. Others such as the the various works of arts probably do not satisfy
WP:NFCC#3a and
WP:NFCC#8 as well as possibly
WP:NFCC#1. Change them to public domain, if they're old enough.
-- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't really understand all these points, I'm afraid. There is no desire from the heirs of Gladys Aller to make reproduction of her works copyright free or in the public domain. Why cannot they just be used to illustrate text for an historical person? As for the clippings from the newspaper - one of the papers, at least, no longer exists, and it is unknown if they were ever subsequently reproduced, although at least one of the artists in the photos - Fletcher Martin is a well known figure. There are no online sources to reference for these photos. That is a problem when an artist died before the internet was invented. The only specific image available online is through the Metropolitan Museum of Art and it is specifically stated that it cannot be reproduced (and wasn't on the page - only linked.) But what good is an article about an historical figure - a visual artist, if the reader cannot see examples of her work?
I can add more specific text to the article referencing the actual paintings as representative of her style at a particular period, if that would help. BlueWind13 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding usage of the photo of the artist File: Gladys Aller Painter - the heirs have given permission for its free use and reproduction. They would like a photo of their mother to be available online and for editorial use. BlueWind13 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Even so, what the heirs may or may not want is secondary to what the copyright holder, living or dead, has a right to— and copyright extends beyond death for some time. Sadly, this is what sometimes happens to images where the copyright holder died before being able to release an image under a suitable license: without any statement of permission or copyright transfer, we must assume the copyright holder intended to retain the full copyright and delete the image from Wikipedia and Commons. It longer matters what he or she might have wished— all that matters is what we can give evidence of, and without evidence, we err on the side of caution, which means we cannot host the file(s). KDS4444 ( talk) 13:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-simple Majora ( talk) 03:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free as it's mostly a text logo against a largely single colour background. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is under non-free terms as it's a text logo? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-ineligible-USonly - the license of the Commons file is questionable (too many of these logo cross-wiki-uploads tend to turn out to be copyvio) and we don't know about Irish TOO Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free as it's a simple text logo with one gemoetric element (right). Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this image is 'non-free' as the equivalent at Commons Commons:File:Photo of Bekir Chobanzade in poetry collection "Boran".jpg was under a free license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a third party logo design, which would need a seperate license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused, Fan-art? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a movie poster, so I am not seeing why it's self. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Refferal, as according to a note on the file page, it's misidentified. Move to commons with a rename? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete - obsoleted by File:Milton Malsor twin plaques.png. Kelly hi! 13:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete - current version obsoleted by File:Milton Malsor twin plaques.png. Older version is on Commons as File:James Harrington Blue Plaque 1.jpg. Kelly hi! 13:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep as is Majora ( talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me this memorial should be covered by {{ FoP-UK}}, as it is located in premises open to the public. Pinging Stefan2. Kelly hi! 13:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
{{photo of art|{{PD-self|date=June 2010}}||{{PD-old-100}}|pdsource=yes}}
as the license and call it a day.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
10:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
No source provided; probably copyvio / unused Jc86035 ( talk • contribs) Use {{ re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unactionable. Image is grandfathered. Majora ( talk) 01:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
User was advised to update the details at least 3 years ago and nothing happened in respect of this image. Credits a photgrapher, but it's not clear if it's the uploader. {{ uw-imgclaim1}} left on talk page but given the inactivity, FFD refferal. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused, User profile photo ( as given name doesn't seem to be an article subject)? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by JohnCD ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
(In the absence of a forum for technical concerns), This image is unused, and whilst hi-res appears to be ever so slightly blurred/out of focus in my view. FFD for a second opinion. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep as non-free thus Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Games screenshots, cannot be own work. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Unused, Upload log check suggests this was part of set many of which have now been deleted. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; the change in author information makes it unclear whether the license applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Uploader seemingly changed the attribution for this image, So who actually took the photo? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicensing to Photo of art with the current license as photographer side and PD-old-100 as the art license, to recognize the copyright status of the painting Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Assuming Good faith, given that this is a PD painting, and in use. The question here is whether this needs a different license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Wrong venue Majora ( talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This uses a non-free file format, but seems to be linked from a reference desk disscussion. Any takers for converting this to something that can be put on Commons? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-art Majora ( talk) 04:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying whhy this is considered non-free, when the art which is the subject of the image looks to be very old. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-Art|{{PD-old-70}}}}
or {{Licensed-PD|{{PD-old-70}}|{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}}}
considering that the artwork, as indicated by the source, is from the "early 18th century".
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
09:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free as it seems to be a text cover. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-ineligible-USOnly Majora ( talk) 03:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is tagged as non-free locally, but simple at Commons, Is the Edge decision being applied locally (given the Cr design to the left of the logo). Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this logo is non-free as it's one geometric element and text. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free, given that the equivalent file at Commons is under a 'free' license. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free as it's a text logo (albiet a slightly stylised font). Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-ineligible-USOnly Majora ( talk) 03:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free, as it's mostly text or simple geometric shapes. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this image is non-free, when it may lie below threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this logo is non-free, as it Text plus one geometric element. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Keep as non-free. Deleted on Commons. ( non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 21:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free, as it's a mostly text logo Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Orphan. Was removed from Cultural area because accuracy is disputed; appears to be original research and thus unlikely to be useful. -- Beland ( talk) 18:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Queying why this image is non-free when the Commons Equivalent is considered to be under an expired Croat/Yugoslav copyright. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-USonly - not clear whether the file is free in the Netherlands and the identical Commons file is questionably licensed Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this logo is non-free, given it's mostly text or simple geometric elements. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Relicense as PD-USonly - not clear whether the file is free in the countries of origin Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Querying why this is non-free, given that it's a mostly text logo. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 19:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Querying as this appears to be packaging arwtork, no contest that it's likely to be the uploaders photo. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)