The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
A worse version of this picture. — Ирука 13 03:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Published in 2015. It is not in the public domain either in Italy or in the US. — Ирука 13 03:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The parent image is indexed by search engines much earlier than it is uploaded to Commons. This is the only edit from the account. Confirmation is required that the copyright owner and the uploader are the same person. — Ирука 13 04:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD - FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The photo is not in the public domain in the US, as it was not in the public domain in Norway in 1996. — Ирука 13 04:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Du kan kopiere, endre, spre, vise og fremføre dette verket, selv for kommersielle formål, uten å spørre om tillatelseand links to https://www.nb.no/lisens/publicdomain ). jp× g 00:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Du kan kopiere, endre, spre, vise og fremføre dette verket, selv for kommersielle formål, uten å spørre om tillatelse.Translation: You can copy, change, distribute, show and perform this work, also for commercial purposes, without asking for permission. It does not say that permission has been granted, so it could mean that they think that the copyright has expired. The Norwegian National Library probably only looks at Norwegian law, not United States law, so what it means is that the copyright has expired in Norway. For the United States, we must look at what the law says in order to establish the copyright status. Clicking on the "informasjon" link reveals that the photo was taken in 1956 and that the photographer is called Lie-Svendsen. I can't find a death year, but searching for photos by Lie-Svendsen, I find photos from 1900 until 1964. Due to the long time range, and considering that we only have a surname, I'm guessing that we are talking about at least two generations of photographers. Considering the text on the photo, I assume that it was a postcard or at least some kind of photo which was published shortly after publication.
The collection from the firm was partly given to the [ Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage] according to the norwegian WP-page. The firm itself have not given the material to the Public Domain. But. As a hired photograper the copyright would belong to the firm and last for a shorter period of time. 25 years? If so 1981/2 seems to be a fair date. Later longer periods of copyright do not include material already fallen into the Pubic Domain. Summa sumarum I do belive this image is in the public domain, and have been so since 1981/2. Keep. Another image very alike is there in a probably not published version. The archive here have unpublished negatives, and publish without claiming copyright on the image. That would too be in the public domain. Keep. Andrez1 ( talk) 23:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Eritrea, so the pottery presented here is protected under copyright. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk} 14:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Webshots shut down years ago, so the license cannot be verified. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD - FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука 13 16:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD - FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука 13 22:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
A worse version of this picture. — Ирука 13 03:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Published in 2015. It is not in the public domain either in Italy or in the US. — Ирука 13 03:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The parent image is indexed by search engines much earlier than it is uploaded to Commons. This is the only edit from the account. Confirmation is required that the copyright owner and the uploader are the same person. — Ирука 13 04:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD - FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The photo is not in the public domain in the US, as it was not in the public domain in Norway in 1996. — Ирука 13 04:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Du kan kopiere, endre, spre, vise og fremføre dette verket, selv for kommersielle formål, uten å spørre om tillatelseand links to https://www.nb.no/lisens/publicdomain ). jp× g 00:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Du kan kopiere, endre, spre, vise og fremføre dette verket, selv for kommersielle formål, uten å spørre om tillatelse.Translation: You can copy, change, distribute, show and perform this work, also for commercial purposes, without asking for permission. It does not say that permission has been granted, so it could mean that they think that the copyright has expired. The Norwegian National Library probably only looks at Norwegian law, not United States law, so what it means is that the copyright has expired in Norway. For the United States, we must look at what the law says in order to establish the copyright status. Clicking on the "informasjon" link reveals that the photo was taken in 1956 and that the photographer is called Lie-Svendsen. I can't find a death year, but searching for photos by Lie-Svendsen, I find photos from 1900 until 1964. Due to the long time range, and considering that we only have a surname, I'm guessing that we are talking about at least two generations of photographers. Considering the text on the photo, I assume that it was a postcard or at least some kind of photo which was published shortly after publication.
The collection from the firm was partly given to the [ Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage] according to the norwegian WP-page. The firm itself have not given the material to the Public Domain. But. As a hired photograper the copyright would belong to the firm and last for a shorter period of time. 25 years? If so 1981/2 seems to be a fair date. Later longer periods of copyright do not include material already fallen into the Pubic Domain. Summa sumarum I do belive this image is in the public domain, and have been so since 1981/2. Keep. Another image very alike is there in a probably not published version. The archive here have unpublished negatives, and publish without claiming copyright on the image. That would too be in the public domain. Keep. Andrez1 ( talk) 23:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Eritrea, so the pottery presented here is protected under copyright. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk} 14:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Webshots shut down years ago, so the license cannot be verified. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 ( talk) 18:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD - FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука 13 16:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD - FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука 13 22:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit 23:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)