The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Smaller versions exist on multiple websites - requesting WP:OTRS confirmation of own work. – Train2104 ( t • c) 02:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. ℯ xplicit 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe this photo is a "unique historic image," and lamentably I can't think of another appropriate non-free use justification. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Open for nearly 2 months without new comments/!votes. This might get more attention at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. - FASTILY 07:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems like this file is simple enough to be public domain in the US, and thus may need to be tagged with {{ PD-logo}}. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
There are two media images used in the article Irene (musical), the sheet music cover in the public domain and this poster for the revival. The sheet music cover poster is used in the infobox and the revival poster is used in the Later productions. The rationale from the revival poster is "it is a key visual representation of the musical that is the subject of the article". The revoval poster fails WP:NFCC#3a in that the sheet music cover already is used in the article for means of identification and is a key visual representation of the musical. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the poster thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the musical. Aspects ( talk) 23:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
We do not know the copyright status of the original photo (and therefore its derivative work). BBC News only said that Interpol released the photo, but not where it was taken and under whose copyright laws it falls. The file therefore cannot meet WP:NFCC#10a, which requires "[i]dentification of the source of the original copyrighted material".
Lastly, we have no evidence that this file "has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder" as required by WP:NFCC#4. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
uploader appears to be subject of image, no proof photographer released the photograph under a free license Jon Kolbert ( talk) 20:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Smaller versions exist on multiple websites - requesting WP:OTRS confirmation of own work. – Train2104 ( t • c) 02:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep. ℯ xplicit 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe this photo is a "unique historic image," and lamentably I can't think of another appropriate non-free use justification. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Open for nearly 2 months without new comments/!votes. This might get more attention at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. - FASTILY 07:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems like this file is simple enough to be public domain in the US, and thus may need to be tagged with {{ PD-logo}}. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
There are two media images used in the article Irene (musical), the sheet music cover in the public domain and this poster for the revival. The sheet music cover poster is used in the infobox and the revival poster is used in the Later productions. The rationale from the revival poster is "it is a key visual representation of the musical that is the subject of the article". The revoval poster fails WP:NFCC#3a in that the sheet music cover already is used in the article for means of identification and is a key visual representation of the musical. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the poster thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the musical. Aspects ( talk) 23:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
We do not know the copyright status of the original photo (and therefore its derivative work). BBC News only said that Interpol released the photo, but not where it was taken and under whose copyright laws it falls. The file therefore cannot meet WP:NFCC#10a, which requires "[i]dentification of the source of the original copyrighted material".
Lastly, we have no evidence that this file "has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder" as required by WP:NFCC#4. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
uploader appears to be subject of image, no proof photographer released the photograph under a free license Jon Kolbert ( talk) 20:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)