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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pioneer in the Application of Statistics Using Electronic Computers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Invalid public domain reason. Eeekster (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Motcopa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Official county flag, claimed as "own work." (Seriously, it looks like a photo of a computer screen)GrapedApe (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment looks like a photo of a fabric, so the person could be claiming own work on the photo. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that really look like fabric to you?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—both this and the one below look like photographs of a computer screen, not embroidery. The only "rights" the upload can then claim is on a the photograph, and not on the image. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 30 April 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montgomerycounty.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Official county seal listed as "own work" GrapedApe (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment looks like embroidery, could be the person is claiming own work on the photo or the needlework. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that really look like fabric to you?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—both this and the one above look like photographs of a computer screen, not embroidery. The only "rights" the upload can then claim is on a the photograph, and not on the image. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 30 April 2013 (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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:VAC Benny Award.jpg.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 3D object - copyright will belong to to Variety Artists Club of New Zealand  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fairuse the award article should show the award ; the award article is currently pending at AFC Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benny Award -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2013 (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. Consistency with Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:OO_Scale Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:N Scale model of BR Standard Class 3 2-6-2T.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a toy - see commons:COM:TOYS  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that this "toy" is a model of an old steam train and that the manufacturer doesn't own the copyright to the original locomotive design (often models of the the same British steam locomotive are produced by different companies which suggests they don't own any copyright in the design) I don't think that they could claim any copyright in my photo. If they could then that would put every UK model railway magazine out of business. greenwoodma (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• So, does that mean any picture of an old Tonka toy is a copyvio that threatens Kaiser-Jeep? -------User:DanTD (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The "toy" is actually a scale model of a utilitarian object (ie a steam locomotive). I would therefore have thought that the photograph is a derivative work of a model that is, in turn, a derivative work of something else (ie the original locomotive) that is not a work of art, and is therefore not subject to copyright. However, there could, perhaps, be an issue with the British Railways logo on the side tank. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum – see Commons:Derivative works#Casebook: "Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself." It would appear to follow that the photo of the model can be treated as if it were a photo of the original locomotive. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the British Railways logo is already an existing Wikipedia image which doesn't seem to have been flagged as a problem greenwoodma (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • and the British Railways logo was itself a derivative work. The original was the Seal of the British Transport Commission, which comprised 'a lion bestriding a composite symbol which includes a wheel; a winged arrow superimposed on a pattern of wavy lines ... and a pair of torches emitting flashes of lightning ...'. More in

"The B.T.C. Seal". The Railway Magazine. Vol. 94, no. 574. Westminster: Railway Publishing Company. March–April 1948. p. 127.

"Symbols and Totems Used by the British Transport Commission and its Executives". The Railway Magazine. Vol. 95, no. 580. Westminster: Railway Publishing Company. March–April 1949. p. 128.

Bonavia, Michael R. (1981). British Rail: The First 25 Years. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. p. 61. ISBN 0-7153-8002-8.

The seal was designed by Cecil Thomas FRBS; so, the question then is, did he transfer the copyright to the BTC before he died? If so, it's Crown Copyright, which will have expired in 1998. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Under the a "useful article" category, not a work of art, so not a derivative work. See Commons:UA "the design of a useful article [...] shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." There are so such independent pictorial, graphic, or sculptural. The logo on the side is de minimus use of a trademark--that's fine. Nom cites commons:COM:TOYS, which uses Mickey Mouse and Pokémon, but this train is not a copyrighted character.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the original train is utilitarian, this toy is not. According to Commons:User:Elcobbola/Models, only the full-size train and not this miniature train is in the public domain as utilitarian. This means that we need to delete this image as a copyright violation of a copyrighted toy. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That citation would have to count as an essay, and I see that our precedents do not consistently reaffirm it. And I note for example that the copyright cases invoked have to do with companies making model kits copied from the work of others, presumably on a part-by-part basis. I do not see a case listed where a model maker was able to suppress photography of the assembled model. This is, I believe, pictured as purchased, so it is not entirely analogous either; perhaps one can advance the argument that as a depiction it would fall under copyright, but that's not covered in the legal arguments advanced in the cited essay. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The decision (after some discussion Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:OO_Scale) for photos of OO gauge model trains was to keep, and I can't see any difference between OO gauge and N gauge that should lead to a different decision greenwoodma (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2013 (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: Non-free. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bannu Medical College.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. ALH (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fair use - even if it really is the uploader's work, it most likely belongs to the college. Eeekster (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted to fair use. I withdraw this nomination. ALH (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:01, 21 May 2013 (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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bannu Medical College Magazine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work. ALH (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi, I am Dr. Adil Ramzan and i am the head of literary society of Bannu Medical College, This edition of magazine was released under my supervison. This absolutely free. Kindly don't delete it Thanks Dr Adil (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

DAR (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • If may ask, is there any proof that you are the author and copyright holder of this image? ALH (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (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.