- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Fabrizio Meoni.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peter39c ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No source and conflicting licensing. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Image has already been published on the web without a compatible license (e.g. here in 2005). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: relisted on 2018 June 17. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Harriet Kosmo Henson.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. The concern about FOP not applying in this instance is well taken, but so is the question about the threshold of originality. The page Marchjuly cites on Commons references a few images which were kept for this reason and nobody has disagreed, so keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Rampalgrave.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smerus ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No freedom of panorama in France. Kelly hi! 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @ Kelly: It appears to me that, unless graves are considered artwork, {{ FoP-USonly}} would apply here. ℯ xplicit 03:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To settle whether copyright would apply to such graves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: To settle whether copyright would apply to such graves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with
User:Explicit - the only artwork will be the little item in the middle - de minimis will apply. Change to {{
FoP-USonly}}
Ronhjones
(Talk)
10:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see why you think that {{ FoP-USonly}} would apply. That tag is specifically for works of architecture, meaning buildings which you can enter. A grave has no door, so I don't see how you could possibly enter a grave. The dead body in the grave can't easily exit the grave either. However, I'm not sure that the grave meets the threshold of originality. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. An over-enthusiastic attempt to interpret deletion criteria.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The idea that "architecture" is restricted to buildings with a door is rather far-fetched.
Lutyens's
Cenotaph etc show that a building doesn't need a door to be architecture. See the Wikipedia article on
Architecture: "Architecture is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings or any other structures."
Tim riley
talk
20:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Within copyright law, the term "architectural work" has a specific meaning. The Cenotaph, Whitehall would normally be treated as a sculpture rather than a "work of architecture", I think. The US FOP exception reads:
| “ | The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. | ” |
- Note specifically that the work must be embodied in a building for the FOP exception to apply. A grave is normally not embodied in a building. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I believe Stefan2 is correct when it comes to how a "building" is defined per US Copyright law as explained in c:COM:FOP#United States. It's not so much that the grave needs to have a door per se, but rather whether it would be considered to be "habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary" which is specifically "designed for human occupancy". I don't think a grave would be treated as "building" in this case since I don't think (and this is going to sound worse than intended) such structures would be considered "habitable by humans" in this context. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - It does not look to me like anything in the image would meet the threshold of originality such that freedom of panorama would be a factor (aside from de minimis elements). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per above and the image helps the user's understanding.-- DBig Xray 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 but relicense to PD-because. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Malcolm X mugshot 1944.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mozart834428196 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
patently unviable rationale for form being in the public domain—larceny is not a federal crime—so not the work product of a U.S. government employee
Neonorange (
talk)
16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- comment image metadata shows Corbis Corporation is copyright holder — Neonorange ( talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Whether or not Corbis holds the copyright, Malcolm Little was arrested by local police in Massachusetts, not by the federal government, so the specific public domain rationale used is inappropriate. I don't have a clue whether mugshots from Massachusetts from the 1940s are or are not in the public domain. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. The file page analysis is plainly invalid. However, even in the unlikely event that this image was originally published carrying the required copyright notice, I deeply, deeply doubt that the copyright holder, presumably the town where the arrest occurred, filed the mandatory copyright renewal notice 28 years later.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (
talk)
11:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert in the subject, but that may well be the case. I've seen other instances in which Corbis has been aggressive about asserting copyright in images that belong in the public domain. If the conclusion is that the image is free, however, I'll find a better quality version of the mugshot (i.e., one in which the card in front of Little isn't scratched out). — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- It appears that particular mugshot may only be available with the scratched-out text. Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention credits it to Corbis. There are a few similar mugshots of Little (he was arrested more than once, and also photographed while in prison). According to this website, its (badly cropped) copy of Little's prison mugshot is in the public domain. Click on the image to see the attribution. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any info on first publication and whether it included a copyright notice?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Any info on first publication and whether it included a copyright notice?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Probably/tentatively Keep - According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts website, "Those records created by Massachusetts government agencies and institutions held by the Massachusetts Archives are not copyrighted and are available for public use." The Massachusetts page of the Harvard Library Copyright resource mentions that quote, but hedges it a bit. Based on this, mugshots are considered a public record as such. It looks like this was part of the Bettmann Archive that Corbis bought. It happens frequently that such archives include things that would otherwise be freely available, including material published long enough ago to be conclusively in public domain, and to slap a copyright notice on them. I don't have much experience with Corbis in particular, but I've seen Getty do that several times. If it's an image in the public domain, there's just no copyright leg to stand on. There are some elements of gray area here, like in the distinction between state/municipality property/records, but I'm not seeing arguments which would give cause for concern. Maybe best to keep on Wikipedia rather than Commons, but it seems viable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In case anyone objects to Rhododendrites's analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: In case anyone objects to Rhododendrites's analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.jpg
_-during_Battle_of_Marasesti_-1917;personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu,Commander_of_the_5th_Romanian_Infantry_Division_,_with_this_Regiment_1917.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: relisted on 2018 June 17. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
_-during_Battle_of_Marasesti_-1917;personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu,Commander_of_the_5th_Romanian_Infantry_Division_,_with_this_Regiment_1917.jpg){kind=link}
- File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)
_-during_Battle_of_Marasesti_-1917;personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu,Commander_of_the_5th_Romanian_Infantry_Division_,_with_this_Regiment_1917.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2018+June+9%23File%3A32nd+Mircea+Voda+Regiment%28The+defense+of+Negroponte+Castle%29+-during+Battle+of+Marasesti+-1917%26%2359%3Bpersonal+album+of+Aristide+Razu%2CCommander+of+the+5th+Romanian+Infantry+Division+%2C+with+this+Regiment+1917.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_-during_Battle_of_Marasesti_-1917;personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu,Commander_of_the_5th_Romanian_Infantry_Division_,_with_this_Regiment_1917.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-during_Battle_of_Marasesti_-1917;personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu,Commander_of_the_5th_Romanian_Infantry_Division_,_with_this_Regiment_1917.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_-during_Battle_of_Marasesti_-1917;personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu,Commander_of_the_5th_Romanian_Infantry_Division_,_with_this_Regiment_1917.jpg){kind=link}
- File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment (The Attack-1917) during Marasesti Battle ,personal album of Aristide Razu.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
_during_Marasesti_Battle_,personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_during_Marasesti_Battle_,personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2018+June+9%23File%3A32nd+Mircea+Voda+Regiment+%28The+Attack-1917%29+during+Marasesti+Battle+%2Cpersonal+album+of+Aristide+Razu.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
_during_Marasesti_Battle_,personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_during_Marasesti_Battle_,personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_during_Marasesti_Battle_,personal_album_of_Aristide_Razu.jpg){kind=link}
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. Apparently no actual reason for deletion was given. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:HS Brian Simpson Rowing Boat Christening.JPEG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by John Yeates ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned image not being used in any constructive way. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why is that a reason to delete? It's not a NFCC issue. Assuming the license tag is correct, it should just be copied to Commons. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 relicensing which was already done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:BongStonerRock.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by J9930 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No licensing tags to see whom owns it. In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?. 18:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete- it's an album cover, presumed copyrighted: see here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Now that it's in use. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, licensing of non-free album cover has now been added and there is already a fair use present. Salavat ( talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @ In Memoriam A.H.H.:, files with no licensing should be tagged with {{ subst:nld}} (unknown copyright status) instead of being listed here at FFD. If a license hasn't been added after seven days the file will then be deleted. Salavat ( talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Salavat -- DBig Xray 17:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep with the adjustments that User:Salavat made to the file information page. The file meets WP:NFCC. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Fabrizio Meoni.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Peter39c ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No source and conflicting licensing. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Image has already been published on the web without a compatible license (e.g. here in 2005). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: relisted on 2018 June 17. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Harriet Kosmo Henson.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. The concern about FOP not applying in this instance is well taken, but so is the question about the threshold of originality. The page Marchjuly cites on Commons references a few images which were kept for this reason and nobody has disagreed, so keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Rampalgrave.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Smerus ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No freedom of panorama in France. Kelly hi! 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @ Kelly: It appears to me that, unless graves are considered artwork, {{ FoP-USonly}} would apply here. ℯ xplicit 03:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To settle whether copyright would apply to such graves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: To settle whether copyright would apply to such graves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with
User:Explicit - the only artwork will be the little item in the middle - de minimis will apply. Change to {{
FoP-USonly}}
Ronhjones
(Talk)
10:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see why you think that {{ FoP-USonly}} would apply. That tag is specifically for works of architecture, meaning buildings which you can enter. A grave has no door, so I don't see how you could possibly enter a grave. The dead body in the grave can't easily exit the grave either. However, I'm not sure that the grave meets the threshold of originality. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. An over-enthusiastic attempt to interpret deletion criteria.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The idea that "architecture" is restricted to buildings with a door is rather far-fetched.
Lutyens's
Cenotaph etc show that a building doesn't need a door to be architecture. See the Wikipedia article on
Architecture: "Architecture is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings or any other structures."
Tim riley
talk
20:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Within copyright law, the term "architectural work" has a specific meaning. The Cenotaph, Whitehall would normally be treated as a sculpture rather than a "work of architecture", I think. The US FOP exception reads:
| “ | The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. | ” |
- Note specifically that the work must be embodied in a building for the FOP exception to apply. A grave is normally not embodied in a building. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I believe Stefan2 is correct when it comes to how a "building" is defined per US Copyright law as explained in c:COM:FOP#United States. It's not so much that the grave needs to have a door per se, but rather whether it would be considered to be "habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary" which is specifically "designed for human occupancy". I don't think a grave would be treated as "building" in this case since I don't think (and this is going to sound worse than intended) such structures would be considered "habitable by humans" in this context. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - It does not look to me like anything in the image would meet the threshold of originality such that freedom of panorama would be a factor (aside from de minimis elements). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per above and the image helps the user's understanding.-- DBig Xray 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 but relicense to PD-because. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Malcolm X mugshot 1944.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mozart834428196 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
patently unviable rationale for form being in the public domain—larceny is not a federal crime—so not the work product of a U.S. government employee
Neonorange (
talk)
16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- comment image metadata shows Corbis Corporation is copyright holder — Neonorange ( talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Whether or not Corbis holds the copyright, Malcolm Little was arrested by local police in Massachusetts, not by the federal government, so the specific public domain rationale used is inappropriate. I don't have a clue whether mugshots from Massachusetts from the 1940s are or are not in the public domain. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. The file page analysis is plainly invalid. However, even in the unlikely event that this image was originally published carrying the required copyright notice, I deeply, deeply doubt that the copyright holder, presumably the town where the arrest occurred, filed the mandatory copyright renewal notice 28 years later.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (
talk)
11:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert in the subject, but that may well be the case. I've seen other instances in which Corbis has been aggressive about asserting copyright in images that belong in the public domain. If the conclusion is that the image is free, however, I'll find a better quality version of the mugshot (i.e., one in which the card in front of Little isn't scratched out). — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- It appears that particular mugshot may only be available with the scratched-out text. Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention credits it to Corbis. There are a few similar mugshots of Little (he was arrested more than once, and also photographed while in prison). According to this website, its (badly cropped) copy of Little's prison mugshot is in the public domain. Click on the image to see the attribution. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any info on first publication and whether it included a copyright notice?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Any info on first publication and whether it included a copyright notice?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Probably/tentatively Keep - According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts website, "Those records created by Massachusetts government agencies and institutions held by the Massachusetts Archives are not copyrighted and are available for public use." The Massachusetts page of the Harvard Library Copyright resource mentions that quote, but hedges it a bit. Based on this, mugshots are considered a public record as such. It looks like this was part of the Bettmann Archive that Corbis bought. It happens frequently that such archives include things that would otherwise be freely available, including material published long enough ago to be conclusively in public domain, and to slap a copyright notice on them. I don't have much experience with Corbis in particular, but I've seen Getty do that several times. If it's an image in the public domain, there's just no copyright leg to stand on. There are some elements of gray area here, like in the distinction between state/municipality property/records, but I'm not seeing arguments which would give cause for concern. Maybe best to keep on Wikipedia rather than Commons, but it seems viable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In case anyone objects to Rhododendrites's analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: In case anyone objects to Rhododendrites's analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: relisted on 2018 June 17. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment(The defense of Negroponte Castle) -during Battle of Marasesti -1917;personal album of Aristide Razu,Commander of the 5th Romanian Infantry Division , with this Regiment 1917.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)
- File:32nd Mircea Voda Regiment (The Attack-1917) during Marasesti Battle ,personal album of Aristide Razu.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. Apparently no actual reason for deletion was given. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:HS Brian Simpson Rowing Boat Christening.JPEG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by John Yeates ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Orphaned image not being used in any constructive way. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why is that a reason to delete? It's not a NFCC issue. Assuming the license tag is correct, it should just be copied to Commons. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 relicensing which was already done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:BongStonerRock.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by J9930 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
No licensing tags to see whom owns it. In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?. 18:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete- it's an album cover, presumed copyrighted: see here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Now that it's in use. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, licensing of non-free album cover has now been added and there is already a fair use present. Salavat ( talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @ In Memoriam A.H.H.:, files with no licensing should be tagged with {{ subst:nld}} (unknown copyright status) instead of being listed here at FFD. If a license hasn't been added after seven days the file will then be deleted. Salavat ( talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Salavat -- DBig Xray 17:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep with the adjustments that User:Salavat made to the file information page. The file meets WP:NFCC. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.