- 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
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Book Cover used as decoration in an Article tons of Reasonable Fair equivalents available that would not detract from the article The Resident Anthropologist ( Talk / contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- What other images would you suggest? This picture is of the book that inspired and founded the entire theoretical movement. Surely it is the most relevent possible image for
Post-processual archaeology. (
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
reply
- We don't need to have an image on every article. This one is a completely unnecessary use of non-free material. But if you really want some top decoration, what about a montage of pictures of the main proponents of the field? Or maybe a picture of just one researcher of the field, or some diagram that is relevant to the field. -- Damiens.rf 18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:CodeSonar ShowsDefect.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Screenshot of non-free software CodeSonar, marked as PD-self Hashproduct ( talk) 04:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment: The image is public domain. It is a screenshot from a software system develped internally by Fraunhofer IESE (Kaiserslautern, Germany). The tool is not related to the commercial software system Code Sonar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerg.Rech ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Hakim Syed Fazlur Rahman.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photograph of a painting, unlikely to be own work by the uploader Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Hakim Syed Karam Husain.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photograph of a painting, unlikely to be own work of the uploader Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. PD-1923-abroad seems to cover it as far as I'm concerned. If it's determined to definitely be public domain in the UK, we can transfer it to Commons. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:Northamptonabingtonpark.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Clear copyright violation and inappropriate usage of {{ pd-us}}, which only applies to works published in the United States. This work was published in the United Kingdom and is therefore subject to the life of the author plus 70 years. It is entirely feasible that the photographer of a picture taken between 1901 and 1910 was alive some time after 1941 and therefore we need to err on the side of caution and delete the image. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 10:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The date of creation of the postcard is known but the photographer unknown. The advice on the copyright page about UK copyright states, [1] "The Writers Copyright Association as well as the UK Copyright service has a good summary. The legal basis is the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, and subsequent modifications and revisions, details at Jenkins IP In particular for literary, artistic works, copyright ends 70 years after the last surviving author dies or if unknown, 70 years after creation or publication." Since in the case the author is unknown, the copyright on the postcard lapsed in the 1970's. I'm not quite sure which template to use in these circumstances. Probably its a good idea to ask a copyright expert like Moonriddengirl ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) if in doubt: I have asked her to comment. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 10:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- As far as I can see, the PD-US-1923 rule actually does apply here. Items published abroad before 1923 are in the public domain in the US even if they are not in the public domain in their country of origin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- ( edit conflict)Hi. Per common practice, we should have no problem keeping this. See Wikipedia:Public domain, particularly footnote 1. See also Cornell: Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, which notes the same situation. As set out there, the only established exception to the 1923 date for works released anywhere in the world relates to works published in a language other than English, which are treated as unpublished until published in English in the regions of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana. I think {{ pd-us}} was probably fine given the origin of the image, but I've altered the tag to {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}}. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Public domain states "When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account. " How can you be sure that this work was ever published in the USA? Why would a postcard of a park in a small English town be published in the USA? I can understand copies may have been sent to the USA, but published - no. Personally I think there is enough doubt, both about the author's date of death and the question of whether the work was published in the USA to merit its deletion, as it is most certainly still under copyright in the UK (which should be taken into account according to the advice above. As far as I can see this is the only postcard that has been uploaded from its source website - despite there being thousands of postcards published there. If it were beyond doubt that this is a PD image then surely many more would have been uploaded to support historical sections of UK town and village articles. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 11:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- While our practices urge us to be cautious of copyright in other countries, we are not forbidden from uploading material that is public domain in the United States, but not elsewhere. U.S. copyright law governs Wikipedia because Wikipedia is based in the United States. That's why this tag and tags like it exist. Specifically, note Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, which says, "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." As the links I presented above demonstrate, whether or not the material was ever published in the United States it is in the public domain in the United States if published before 1923 except in very limited circumstances. If we're going to make it a hard and fast rule that material must be PD in the source country as well as the U.S., we're going to have to take this conversation much wider, because it does not only apply to this image but to longstanding practice on Wikipedia. {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}} alone is transcluded to almost 2,000 images. While it would be difficult to determine how many images tagged {{ PD-US}} were also published abroad, note that its usage in those circumstances is specifically encouraged in point 6. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 for purposes of PUF, however, one should take care to assess whether this image meets all of the provisions at WP:NFCC. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:Erlandson basket.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Looking to clear up a copyright status here. The photographer released this image under CC-BY-SA 3.0, but as the tree itself is a "work of art" it is probably copyrighted. Freedom of panorama does not apply to artworks in the US, so in that case this picture is non-free. Can we find some evidence that this artwork is in the public domain and if not can we use it under the NFCC criteria? Yoenit ( talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Yoenit ( talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The tree was photographed at Gilroy Gardens in Ca., artist died in 1964. Slowart ( talk) 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- As with other photographs of 3D art, it's use in Wikipedia is permitted under the law - what is missing is a {{ Non-free 3D art}} tag and a completed {{ Non-free use rationale}} tag. SilkTork * YES! 10:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The chair wishes to thank Moonriddengirl for her diligent work on this matter. I also recommend evaluating all the other images in Category:Public domain images from the ICP to determine their licenses' suitability for inclusion, and list those that are potentially unfree in this venue. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:Roberto Clemente4.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I am suspicious of all files on Category:Public domain images from the ICP. These are files that come from the "Puerto Rican Institute of Culture", and there's an OTRS ticket that purportedly establishes these files as public domain. I wish someone could check what is said on that ticket, since what is said on the images does not seem enough to believe these image are usable. A template message on all images cites an statement from the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico (and I believe that's what documented by the otrs ticket) where he stated that all these images "are clearly in the public domain because: (1) nobody is paid for their continuous use, and, (2) the government does not claim payment from anyone from their reproduction and use." I'm afraid the Honorable Secretary of State has an incomplete understanding of what public domain means. Damiens.rf 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment- It should be noted that Kenneth McClintock is the former President of the Puerto Rican Senate and current Secretary of State and Lt. Governor`of Puerto Rico, the second highest official of Puerto Rico, who represents the people of his island. He also has a doctorate degreee (PhD) in law and to state that a person of his stature, who has more knowledge of the law then most of us, does not have a complete understanding of what public domain means, is quite an undersatatment. Antonio Martin ( talk) 00:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- That's why I would like someone to check what's exactly on the OTRS ticker, since the text seems to mistake public domain with "usable for free". It may have been that someone misinterpreted his words or asked the wrong question. It's also not impossible for him to fail on this. Lawyers, like physicians or philosophers, usually specialize in one small sub-field.-- Damiens.rf 00:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Specialty or not, the issue here is not whether KMC "has an incomplete understanding of what public domain means". What matters here is that the images WERE released as PD by its guardian, the H. Sec of State. If he goofed, that's no different from a private citizen goofing and realizing later. Once you release something as PD, you do so in perpetuity. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- The question is, is that guy on the position of releasing such material to the PD? And better, did his mail released those images to PD or just stated his belief that the images were already PD? -- Damiens.rf 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I choose to spend my time more productively than with someone who's got such a troubled record and, in fact, I am no longer going to monitor this page.My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
Note - I also point out that the user that's questioning these image (Damiens) was previously heavily engaged in a Puerto Rican images deletion campaign in the early part of last year that ended is less than favorable terms for him; not to mention that he has been blocked from Wikipedia multiple times (more precisely, countless times). It is my opinion that he is not in a position to argue his point from a neutral basis. I would be curious to know exactly why Damiens cannot get access to the OTRS himself - it might help him redeem his name. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- Not that this is in any way relevant here but, what were these "less than favorable terms" you mentioned? Due to my work, a bunch of problematic images were deleted and a lot other were fixed to get in line with Wikipedia polices. What am I failing to remember? -- Damiens.rf 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
As above. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- (ec) Comment I just noticed this discussion advertised in a less than neutral fashion here, on a talk page I'm following. There needs to be a more solid basis for determining if these images are public than what appears to be an email from a public official to a Wikipedia editor. If the entire claim for these images being in the public domain is McClintock's comment, and that is all there is to it, then these images may be problematic. The Clemente photo has the appearance of being a professional publicity photo, obviously taken during his heyday as a baseball player years ago. The photographer or Major League Baseball or the Pittsburgh Pirates or Clemente's estate may be the actual owner of the rights. I don't believe that an image goes into the public domain because "nobody is paid for their continuous use," whatever that means. ScottyBerg ( talk) 00:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. There is nothing less than neutral in the link above. And, as I see it, if you wish to question globally that emails from top-ranking government officials should not be acceptable in PD determinations, then I advise you that this is not the proper forum for such claim. Wikipedia has forums for such global policy-level issues where you can argue you case. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- That's utter nonsense. An email from a "top level" government official, or even a bottom level one, does not determine if an image is public domain, particularly given the kind of language utilized in the email. That would create a terrible precedent if we let emails from state/commonwealth/territory officials determine the copyright status of images. A state or territory of the U.S. does not have the power to "take" the rights that reside with a private party, in this case probably MLB or whoever took the picture. As for your other point, there is no need to pass the buck. This is the correct forum for resolving whether an image is free or not.
- If the OTRS ticket was from the photographer or someone else with a right to speak for the photo it would be one thing, but I'm amazed we're even discussing the propriety of a poorly worded email from a third party government official. He has a vested interest in saying this image is PD, in order that he not have to pay for it himself. Really, I don't know why this has been hanging fire for so long. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- We can't establish the image's copyright status from an Argument from authority like yours. -- Damiens.rf 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
As above. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- This photograph, File:Juano Hernandez.jpg, also concerns me. It is a professional studio photograph of a well-known Hollywood actor. There is nothing in the quoted email to indicate that the rights to this photograph were transferred to a government agency or that the photo otherwise lapsed into the public domain. I think that all the photographs in this category, unless clearly in the public domain (by age, for instance), need to be deleted as non-free files. ScottyBerg ( talk) 02:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- I'll run this ticket past our attorney. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- I have written and will advise of any feedback I may receive. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- Our attorney has very kindly provided swift feedback. It seems that the OTRS ticket is not usable. He advises that "the reasons given in the email are not by themselves sufficient to establish that the photographs are in the public domain." In each case, he indicates that we need to determine the origin of the photograph in order to assess copyright status. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Fliss couch.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be scanned from print medium. Eeekster ( talk) 20:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Badshah Haroon Khan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Probably copyvio - appears to be part of a mural. Jujutacular talk 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Ishar Bindra.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- copyvio from http://www.sikhcouncilusa.org/Honorees.aspx ΔT The only constant 21:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Book Cover used as decoration in an Article tons of Reasonable Fair equivalents available that would not detract from the article The Resident Anthropologist ( Talk / contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- What other images would you suggest? This picture is of the book that inspired and founded the entire theoretical movement. Surely it is the most relevent possible image for
Post-processual archaeology. (
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
reply
- We don't need to have an image on every article. This one is a completely unnecessary use of non-free material. But if you really want some top decoration, what about a montage of pictures of the main proponents of the field? Or maybe a picture of just one researcher of the field, or some diagram that is relevant to the field. -- Damiens.rf 18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:CodeSonar ShowsDefect.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Screenshot of non-free software CodeSonar, marked as PD-self Hashproduct ( talk) 04:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment: The image is public domain. It is a screenshot from a software system develped internally by Fraunhofer IESE (Kaiserslautern, Germany). The tool is not related to the commercial software system Code Sonar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerg.Rech ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Hakim Syed Fazlur Rahman.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photograph of a painting, unlikely to be own work by the uploader Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Hakim Syed Karam Husain.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photograph of a painting, unlikely to be own work of the uploader Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. PD-1923-abroad seems to cover it as far as I'm concerned. If it's determined to definitely be public domain in the UK, we can transfer it to Commons. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:Northamptonabingtonpark.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Clear copyright violation and inappropriate usage of {{ pd-us}}, which only applies to works published in the United States. This work was published in the United Kingdom and is therefore subject to the life of the author plus 70 years. It is entirely feasible that the photographer of a picture taken between 1901 and 1910 was alive some time after 1941 and therefore we need to err on the side of caution and delete the image. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 10:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The date of creation of the postcard is known but the photographer unknown. The advice on the copyright page about UK copyright states, [1] "The Writers Copyright Association as well as the UK Copyright service has a good summary. The legal basis is the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, and subsequent modifications and revisions, details at Jenkins IP In particular for literary, artistic works, copyright ends 70 years after the last surviving author dies or if unknown, 70 years after creation or publication." Since in the case the author is unknown, the copyright on the postcard lapsed in the 1970's. I'm not quite sure which template to use in these circumstances. Probably its a good idea to ask a copyright expert like Moonriddengirl ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) if in doubt: I have asked her to comment. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 10:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- As far as I can see, the PD-US-1923 rule actually does apply here. Items published abroad before 1923 are in the public domain in the US even if they are not in the public domain in their country of origin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- ( edit conflict)Hi. Per common practice, we should have no problem keeping this. See Wikipedia:Public domain, particularly footnote 1. See also Cornell: Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, which notes the same situation. As set out there, the only established exception to the 1923 date for works released anywhere in the world relates to works published in a language other than English, which are treated as unpublished until published in English in the regions of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana. I think {{ pd-us}} was probably fine given the origin of the image, but I've altered the tag to {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}}. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Public domain states "When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account. " How can you be sure that this work was ever published in the USA? Why would a postcard of a park in a small English town be published in the USA? I can understand copies may have been sent to the USA, but published - no. Personally I think there is enough doubt, both about the author's date of death and the question of whether the work was published in the USA to merit its deletion, as it is most certainly still under copyright in the UK (which should be taken into account according to the advice above. As far as I can see this is the only postcard that has been uploaded from its source website - despite there being thousands of postcards published there. If it were beyond doubt that this is a PD image then surely many more would have been uploaded to support historical sections of UK town and village articles. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 11:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- While our practices urge us to be cautious of copyright in other countries, we are not forbidden from uploading material that is public domain in the United States, but not elsewhere. U.S. copyright law governs Wikipedia because Wikipedia is based in the United States. That's why this tag and tags like it exist. Specifically, note Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, which says, "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." As the links I presented above demonstrate, whether or not the material was ever published in the United States it is in the public domain in the United States if published before 1923 except in very limited circumstances. If we're going to make it a hard and fast rule that material must be PD in the source country as well as the U.S., we're going to have to take this conversation much wider, because it does not only apply to this image but to longstanding practice on Wikipedia. {{ PD-US-1923-abroad}} alone is transcluded to almost 2,000 images. While it would be difficult to determine how many images tagged {{ PD-US}} were also published abroad, note that its usage in those circumstances is specifically encouraged in point 6. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 for purposes of PUF, however, one should take care to assess whether this image meets all of the provisions at WP:NFCC. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:Erlandson basket.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Looking to clear up a copyright status here. The photographer released this image under CC-BY-SA 3.0, but as the tree itself is a "work of art" it is probably copyrighted. Freedom of panorama does not apply to artworks in the US, so in that case this picture is non-free. Can we find some evidence that this artwork is in the public domain and if not can we use it under the NFCC criteria? Yoenit ( talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Yoenit ( talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The tree was photographed at Gilroy Gardens in Ca., artist died in 1964. Slowart ( talk) 21:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- As with other photographs of 3D art, it's use in Wikipedia is permitted under the law - what is missing is a {{ Non-free 3D art}} tag and a completed {{ Non-free use rationale}} tag. SilkTork * YES! 10:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The chair wishes to thank Moonriddengirl for her diligent work on this matter. I also recommend evaluating all the other images in Category:Public domain images from the ICP to determine their licenses' suitability for inclusion, and list those that are potentially unfree in this venue. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:Roberto Clemente4.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- I am suspicious of all files on Category:Public domain images from the ICP. These are files that come from the "Puerto Rican Institute of Culture", and there's an OTRS ticket that purportedly establishes these files as public domain. I wish someone could check what is said on that ticket, since what is said on the images does not seem enough to believe these image are usable. A template message on all images cites an statement from the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico (and I believe that's what documented by the otrs ticket) where he stated that all these images "are clearly in the public domain because: (1) nobody is paid for their continuous use, and, (2) the government does not claim payment from anyone from their reproduction and use." I'm afraid the Honorable Secretary of State has an incomplete understanding of what public domain means. Damiens.rf 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment- It should be noted that Kenneth McClintock is the former President of the Puerto Rican Senate and current Secretary of State and Lt. Governor`of Puerto Rico, the second highest official of Puerto Rico, who represents the people of his island. He also has a doctorate degreee (PhD) in law and to state that a person of his stature, who has more knowledge of the law then most of us, does not have a complete understanding of what public domain means, is quite an undersatatment. Antonio Martin ( talk) 00:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- That's why I would like someone to check what's exactly on the OTRS ticker, since the text seems to mistake public domain with "usable for free". It may have been that someone misinterpreted his words or asked the wrong question. It's also not impossible for him to fail on this. Lawyers, like physicians or philosophers, usually specialize in one small sub-field.-- Damiens.rf 00:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Specialty or not, the issue here is not whether KMC "has an incomplete understanding of what public domain means". What matters here is that the images WERE released as PD by its guardian, the H. Sec of State. If he goofed, that's no different from a private citizen goofing and realizing later. Once you release something as PD, you do so in perpetuity. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- The question is, is that guy on the position of releasing such material to the PD? And better, did his mail released those images to PD or just stated his belief that the images were already PD? -- Damiens.rf 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I choose to spend my time more productively than with someone who's got such a troubled record and, in fact, I am no longer going to monitor this page.My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
Note - I also point out that the user that's questioning these image (Damiens) was previously heavily engaged in a Puerto Rican images deletion campaign in the early part of last year that ended is less than favorable terms for him; not to mention that he has been blocked from Wikipedia multiple times (more precisely, countless times). It is my opinion that he is not in a position to argue his point from a neutral basis. I would be curious to know exactly why Damiens cannot get access to the OTRS himself - it might help him redeem his name. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- Not that this is in any way relevant here but, what were these "less than favorable terms" you mentioned? Due to my work, a bunch of problematic images were deleted and a lot other were fixed to get in line with Wikipedia polices. What am I failing to remember? -- Damiens.rf 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
As above. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- (ec) Comment I just noticed this discussion advertised in a less than neutral fashion here, on a talk page I'm following. There needs to be a more solid basis for determining if these images are public than what appears to be an email from a public official to a Wikipedia editor. If the entire claim for these images being in the public domain is McClintock's comment, and that is all there is to it, then these images may be problematic. The Clemente photo has the appearance of being a professional publicity photo, obviously taken during his heyday as a baseball player years ago. The photographer or Major League Baseball or the Pittsburgh Pirates or Clemente's estate may be the actual owner of the rights. I don't believe that an image goes into the public domain because "nobody is paid for their continuous use," whatever that means. ScottyBerg ( talk) 00:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment. There is nothing less than neutral in the link above. And, as I see it, if you wish to question globally that emails from top-ranking government officials should not be acceptable in PD determinations, then I advise you that this is not the proper forum for such claim. Wikipedia has forums for such global policy-level issues where you can argue you case. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- That's utter nonsense. An email from a "top level" government official, or even a bottom level one, does not determine if an image is public domain, particularly given the kind of language utilized in the email. That would create a terrible precedent if we let emails from state/commonwealth/territory officials determine the copyright status of images. A state or territory of the U.S. does not have the power to "take" the rights that reside with a private party, in this case probably MLB or whoever took the picture. As for your other point, there is no need to pass the buck. This is the correct forum for resolving whether an image is free or not.
- If the OTRS ticket was from the photographer or someone else with a right to speak for the photo it would be one thing, but I'm amazed we're even discussing the propriety of a poorly worded email from a third party government official. He has a vested interest in saying this image is PD, in order that he not have to pay for it himself. Really, I don't know why this has been hanging fire for so long. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- We can't establish the image's copyright status from an Argument from authority like yours. -- Damiens.rf 16:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
As above. My name is Mercy11 ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message. reply
- This photograph, File:Juano Hernandez.jpg, also concerns me. It is a professional studio photograph of a well-known Hollywood actor. There is nothing in the quoted email to indicate that the rights to this photograph were transferred to a government agency or that the photo otherwise lapsed into the public domain. I think that all the photographs in this category, unless clearly in the public domain (by age, for instance), need to be deleted as non-free files. ScottyBerg ( talk) 02:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- I'll run this ticket past our attorney. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- I have written and will advise of any feedback I may receive. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
- Our attorney has very kindly provided swift feedback. It seems that the OTRS ticket is not usable. He advises that "the reasons given in the email are not by themselves sufficient to establish that the photographs are in the public domain." In each case, he indicates that we need to determine the origin of the photograph in order to assess copyright status. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Fliss couch.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Appears to be scanned from print medium. Eeekster ( talk) 20:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Badshah Haroon Khan.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Probably copyvio - appears to be part of a mural. Jujutacular talk 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
- File:Ishar Bindra.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- copyvio from http://www.sikhcouncilusa.org/Honorees.aspx ΔT The only constant 21:40, 28 March 2011 (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.