From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
October 4
File:IUPseal.jpg
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:IUPseal.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- University logo was created in 1999 [1]. Not public domain. Image has been replaced by File:IUP seal.png. GrapedApe ( talk) 00:26, 4 October 2010 (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.
File:Apl.JPG
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Apl.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo for a fraternity. Uploader has not provided evidence that he is either the creator of the logo, nor that he is authorized to release it into PD. Image is unused, as its article was deleted at AFD recently. GrapedApe ( talk) 00:34, 4 October 2010 (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.
File:Italian Mexican People.jpg
- 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 NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Italian Mexican People.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- A montage of images with no source specified. Based on user's other uploads, likely that some, if not most of the images are copvios. Mosmof ( talk) 06:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete: A montage/collage (i.e - derivative work) that should have been deleted on October 5 for not having source(s). Uploaders other like images ( File:Mexican British People.jpg and File:Arab mexican people.jpg) are the same - derivatives. File:Arab mexican people.jpg, like this image, was correctly tagged with a {{ di-no source}} but because it uses a "self" license their deletions were declined by the same admin who felt these derivative works have a listed source that aids in verifying copyright. While the uploader, and the declining admin, feel the creation of *this* work without stating copyright or source information on the original works it is based on is enough, to most who deal with images "source" means "where is the original image from", not "I did created this work entirely by myself". In the words of the Wikipedia:Image use policy: Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. In this case "I did created this work entirely by myself" says nothing about the original image sources. And a look at the uploader history shows us images such as File:Mexican American people2.jpg - deleted as a copyvio. File:Salma Hayek.jpg - copyvio. File:BridgeviewMosque.jpg - no evidence of permission. You get the idea. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:35, 7 October 2010 (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.
File:Arab mexican people.jpg
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Arab mexican people.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- No source specified for any of the images making up the montage. Likely that most are copyvios. Mosmof ( talk) 06:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete: See my response above for File:Italian Mexican People.jpg. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (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.
File:GemukGirls.jpg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:GemukGirls.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- promotional materials for theatre company; other similar materials are uploaded as (c) ( File:Fh-flyer.jpg & File:Geg-zocard.jpg) Presumed that this also would be (c) & not CC. Skier Dude ( talk 07:15, 4 October 2010 (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.
Uploads by User:Griffiths911
- 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: Relisted. -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 21:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The following images are incorporates:
- File:Bristol Group.JPG
- File:Captain MGT Harris.JPG
- File:Retired Cardiff2007.jpg
- File:HMS Exeter1982.jpg
- File:Lt. Christopher Waters.jpeg
- File:Cardiff21982.JPG
- File:HMS CARDIFF 1981.JPEG
Most of the uploader's files have been deleted as copyvios; this casts a suspicion on these images and they should be deleted absent robust proof of ownership. Stifle ( talk) 08:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Please see here These 2 were definitely taken by Ken ( File:Bristol Group.JPG + File:Cardiff21982.JPG), the rest are not free and I'm not sure about the File:Captain MGT Harris.JPG one. Ryan4314 ( talk) 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to
here to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks--
ARTEST4ECHO (
talk|
contribs) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (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.
File:Timebar schedule.jpg
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Timebar schedule.jpg ( delete | talk | history | 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Prakash Raj.jpg
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Prakash Raj.jpg ( delete | talk | history | 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:SonsOfMIT.ogg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:SonsOfMIT.ogg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a tricky one. This audio file was
ripped from an old record and uploaded by a now banned user (
User:Piercetheorganist) as PD-self. So, the PD-self tag is clearly incorrect, since the mere act of ripping does not confer copyright ownership on the ripper. Now the question is: is this file in the PD? Here are the considerations:
- The source record is not well-described. The date is given as "early 20th century," but that's not very helpful. We know that the words and lyrics were written by John B. Wilbur class of 1926, so the recording is probably not prior to 1923, so {{ PD-1923}} is out.
- {{ PD-US-no notice}} I have been unable to locate a scan of this record to see if there is a (c) notice on it. This search is complicated, since we don't have a lot of information on the record.
- {{
PD-US-not renewed}}? I haven't been able to locate this record in any of the standard copyright renewal databases (
Stanford). If this record is from the 1920s, then it would have to have been renewed 28 years later, so at some time in the 1950s. Since we don't have the exact date of the record's printing, we'd have to sift through thousands of pages of renewal notices for this time entire period. Again, that search is further complicated because we don't know the exact terms to search.
- Unless someone can substantiate a claim of PD for this file, I think it should be deleted. Especially since the uploader has been banned, so he can't offer any more evidence for us. (see an earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:SonsOfMIT.ogg.)-- GrapedApe ( talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (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.
File:Kochi Port1.jpg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Kochi Port1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Identical image appears on Mumbai Mirror website at http://cms.mumbaimirror.com/portalfiles/21/83/200912/Image/port%208.jpg no reason to believe a newspapaper would release into the public domain MilborneOne ( talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (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.
File:Clement Davies.jpg
- 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, tagging non-free. Someone will need to apply the necessary rationale. After Midnight 0001 12:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Clement Davies.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Claimed to be covered by (expired) Crown Copyright but the source URL contradicts the assertion it was created by the United Kingdom Government. 87.194.6.158 ( talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- It's easy enough to decide that this Elliott & Fry picture isn't free. It's less easy to determine when it will be free or whether any of the other images of Davies the NPG has are now free. The 1936 Bassano photographs may have been in the public domain since 2007, and the Elliott & Fry ones may be expected to be in the public domain in 2025, iff the studios owned the copyrights. If Davies owned the rights, which he may well have done if he paid to have them taken, then all of the NPG photographs will not be in the public domain until 70 years following Davies' death at the earliest, that is to say in 2033. In that case we may as well tag this one non-free and stick with it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 12 October 2010 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
October 4
File:IUPseal.jpg
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:IUPseal.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- University logo was created in 1999 [1]. Not public domain. Image has been replaced by File:IUP seal.png. GrapedApe ( talk) 00:26, 4 October 2010 (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.
File:Apl.JPG
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Apl.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo for a fraternity. Uploader has not provided evidence that he is either the creator of the logo, nor that he is authorized to release it into PD. Image is unused, as its article was deleted at AFD recently. GrapedApe ( talk) 00:34, 4 October 2010 (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.
File:Italian Mexican People.jpg
- 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 NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Italian Mexican People.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- A montage of images with no source specified. Based on user's other uploads, likely that some, if not most of the images are copvios. Mosmof ( talk) 06:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete: A montage/collage (i.e - derivative work) that should have been deleted on October 5 for not having source(s). Uploaders other like images ( File:Mexican British People.jpg and File:Arab mexican people.jpg) are the same - derivatives. File:Arab mexican people.jpg, like this image, was correctly tagged with a {{ di-no source}} but because it uses a "self" license their deletions were declined by the same admin who felt these derivative works have a listed source that aids in verifying copyright. While the uploader, and the declining admin, feel the creation of *this* work without stating copyright or source information on the original works it is based on is enough, to most who deal with images "source" means "where is the original image from", not "I did created this work entirely by myself". In the words of the Wikipedia:Image use policy: Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. In this case "I did created this work entirely by myself" says nothing about the original image sources. And a look at the uploader history shows us images such as File:Mexican American people2.jpg - deleted as a copyvio. File:Salma Hayek.jpg - copyvio. File:BridgeviewMosque.jpg - no evidence of permission. You get the idea. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:35, 7 October 2010 (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.
File:Arab mexican people.jpg
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Arab mexican people.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- No source specified for any of the images making up the montage. Likely that most are copyvios. Mosmof ( talk) 06:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete: See my response above for File:Italian Mexican People.jpg. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (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.
File:GemukGirls.jpg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:GemukGirls.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- promotional materials for theatre company; other similar materials are uploaded as (c) ( File:Fh-flyer.jpg & File:Geg-zocard.jpg) Presumed that this also would be (c) & not CC. Skier Dude ( talk 07:15, 4 October 2010 (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.
Uploads by User:Griffiths911
- 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: Relisted. -- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk| contribs) 21:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The following images are incorporates:
- File:Bristol Group.JPG
- File:Captain MGT Harris.JPG
- File:Retired Cardiff2007.jpg
- File:HMS Exeter1982.jpg
- File:Lt. Christopher Waters.jpeg
- File:Cardiff21982.JPG
- File:HMS CARDIFF 1981.JPEG
Most of the uploader's files have been deleted as copyvios; this casts a suspicion on these images and they should be deleted absent robust proof of ownership. Stifle ( talk) 08:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- Please see here These 2 were definitely taken by Ken ( File:Bristol Group.JPG + File:Cardiff21982.JPG), the rest are not free and I'm not sure about the File:Captain MGT Harris.JPG one. Ryan4314 ( talk) 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to
here to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks--
ARTEST4ECHO (
talk|
contribs) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (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.
File:Timebar schedule.jpg
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Timebar schedule.jpg ( delete | talk | history | 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Prakash Raj.jpg
- 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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Prakash Raj.jpg ( delete | talk | history | 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:SonsOfMIT.ogg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:SonsOfMIT.ogg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a tricky one. This audio file was
ripped from an old record and uploaded by a now banned user (
User:Piercetheorganist) as PD-self. So, the PD-self tag is clearly incorrect, since the mere act of ripping does not confer copyright ownership on the ripper. Now the question is: is this file in the PD? Here are the considerations:
- The source record is not well-described. The date is given as "early 20th century," but that's not very helpful. We know that the words and lyrics were written by John B. Wilbur class of 1926, so the recording is probably not prior to 1923, so {{ PD-1923}} is out.
- {{ PD-US-no notice}} I have been unable to locate a scan of this record to see if there is a (c) notice on it. This search is complicated, since we don't have a lot of information on the record.
- {{
PD-US-not renewed}}? I haven't been able to locate this record in any of the standard copyright renewal databases (
Stanford). If this record is from the 1920s, then it would have to have been renewed 28 years later, so at some time in the 1950s. Since we don't have the exact date of the record's printing, we'd have to sift through thousands of pages of renewal notices for this time entire period. Again, that search is further complicated because we don't know the exact terms to search.
- Unless someone can substantiate a claim of PD for this file, I think it should be deleted. Especially since the uploader has been banned, so he can't offer any more evidence for us. (see an earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:SonsOfMIT.ogg.)-- GrapedApe ( talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (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.
File:Kochi Port1.jpg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Kochi Port1.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Identical image appears on Mumbai Mirror website at http://cms.mumbaimirror.com/portalfiles/21/83/200912/Image/port%208.jpg no reason to believe a newspapaper would release into the public domain MilborneOne ( talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (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.
File:Clement Davies.jpg
- 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, tagging non-free. Someone will need to apply the necessary rationale. After Midnight 0001 12:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Clement Davies.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Claimed to be covered by (expired) Crown Copyright but the source URL contradicts the assertion it was created by the United Kingdom Government. 87.194.6.158 ( talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
- It's easy enough to decide that this Elliott & Fry picture isn't free. It's less easy to determine when it will be free or whether any of the other images of Davies the NPG has are now free. The 1936 Bassano photographs may have been in the public domain since 2007, and the Elliott & Fry ones may be expected to be in the public domain in 2025, iff the studios owned the copyrights. If Davies owned the rights, which he may well have done if he paid to have them taken, then all of the NPG photographs will not be in the public domain until 70 years following Davies' death at the earliest, that is to say in 2033. In that case we may as well tag this one non-free and stick with it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 12 October 2010 (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.