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. Dianna (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ak Orda Presidential Palace.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No FOP in Kazakhstan so this image can not be licensed in this way, can't verify information from Flicker as link is requiring logging in. LGA _talk^edits 00:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The license template used is {{FoP-USonly}}, which I specifically created to state that the image is considered free in the US, but not in its source country, per the legal concept of lex loci protectionis. Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights specifically states that "while Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the FOP issue with regard to the US, but to say it is licensed CC is wrong as the photographer can't make that licence as they don't own the total rights to the image , the fact that those rights can't be enforced in the US does not change that. LGA _talk^edits 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you take a photo of a copyrighted building, there are two copyrights: the copyright on the architecture and the copyright on the photo. The photographer controls the photographic copyright while the architect controls the copyright on the architecture. The photographer is free to publish his contribution under a free licence. In this case, the photographic copyright is freely licensed whereas the copyright on the architecture is unenforceable in the United States, so the image can be used freely in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 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: Deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs), but the bot won't close the discussion because of the unusual header. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anukriti Gusain Femina Miss.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Anukriti Gusain Femina Miss 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Both of these have been uploaded by an editor with prior copyright issues, sourced to a new flicker account with only these two images, this could well be a case of trying to Flickrwash the images LGA _talk^edits 01:30, 10 March 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: Nomination withdrawn. Dianna (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Mesa Soundtrack Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Uploader claims the album cover does not contain enough original material to qualify for copyright protection. I think it's over the threshold so am posting it here for discussion. Dianna (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree/oppose as uploader. The very article on Threshold of originality gives File:Best Western logo.svg as an example which I think has comparable originality. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 06:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the Black Mesa logo is below the threshold, but the shape behind it is quite unique. -- Dianna (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shape in the Best Western logo is pretty unique, if not more than the one in this image. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 14:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also the Car Credit City logos where the one just saying "CCC" was found to be uncopyrightable whereas the one also saying "Car Credit City" with a border around was found to be copyrightable. I'm wondering if this isn't more like the copyrighted Car Credit City logo... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macdonian mob attacking an Albanian boy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This image is on many sites around the internet; for example it was posted on this forum on Feb 3, nearly a month before it was uploaded here. So I wonder if this is actually the uploader's own work or not, Dianna (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The picture was taken on March the 1st, in the link to the forum that you provided the date is not Feb 3, as you assumed, but March 2. The format of that forum is DD-MM-YYYY, unlike the American approach MM-DD-YYYY. The forum is Croatian and all of the Balkans use the DD-MM-YYYY format. The picture became somewhat of a sensation on the Balkan websites, does not mean I couldn't have taken it.—Epicurus B. ^{(Not my talk page)} 08:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For verification, scroll down a bit and you will find posts from 04-03-2013. The posts can't be from April 2013 since that is in the future, so it must be from March 2013. The odd month-day-year format is mainly used in the United States while the rest of the world usually uses either year-month-day or day-month-year. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Google has misinterpreted the date of your post to the forum in that case, because the google search engine is where I got the date of Feb 3. This is a really remarkable and historic photo. Do you have a higher resolution copy you could upload? -- Dianna (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Might be the case, I do not own a higher resolution picture.—Epicurus B. ^{(Not my talk page)} 10:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It appeared here on 1 March2 March with "© AlbaniaPress.com". It wasn't uploaded to this website until about a daythree minutes later. Oddly, the text is dated both 1 March and 2 March... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Stefan2, in the site you provided it says: "Publikuar më 02 mars, 2013 në orën 12:19 " which means "Published on March 2, 2013, time:12:19". Whilst I uploaded it at 11:22 per the file history. You do the math.—Epicurus B. ^{(Not my talk page)} 14:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The timestamps are given in different time zones. 11:22 is British winter time while 12:19 is British summer time. If you account for the different time zones, you see that Wikipedia was three minutes later. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renault buses at Strathpine interchange (16-02-2007).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Image from 26 February 2007 shows watermark with copyright claim. Eeekster (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of licence. LGA _talk^edits 05:17, 10 March 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: File does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Tagged {{PD-old-100}}, which claims, "This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years." The subject of the photograph, Aleksa Šantić, died in 1924. No information about the photographer or publication date is provided on the file description page to show even that the photograph is 100 years old, much less that the photographer died over 100 years ago. —Bkell (talk) 20:32, 10 March 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; photo was taken by Owen Murphy; Rodger Kamenetz is not the copyright holder. Dianna (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The uploader wrote, "I Rodger Kamenetz own this photo and hereby give permission for use on Wikipedia." Wikipedia-only permission is not sufficient; see WP:COPYREQ for more information. However, the uploader also tagged this image with {{PD-self}}. What is the proper thing to do in cases such as this? Do we treat the PD-self tag as binding and "correct" the uploader's statement to say something like, "I hereby release this image into the public domain"? —Bkell (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the usual way is to assume that the photo has two licences: one PD licence and one Wikipedia-only licence. Wikipedia can choose to use either licence whereas other people have to use the PD licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the release into the public domain is valid, then the copyright holder has abandoned all copyright to the image. This means that all other licenses are meaningless, because they are unenforceable; the only mechanism for enforcing license conditions is by exercising the legal rights provided by copyright. So the idea of "dual licensing" here doesn't make sense. If the public-domain release is valid, we should just remove the claims for other licenses. —Bkell (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is only in the public domain in the United States. In all other countries, it is licensed under the licence "I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, okay, that's a good point. I still think that we should remove the "permission for use on Wikipedia" part of the text, because we don't need that license in order to use the image here (we can just use the public-domain "license"), and it can't be useful for anyone else. The only thing that text can do is confuse somebody who wants to reuse the image elsewhere, but is led to believe that the image cannot be used outside of Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 21:45, 16 March 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: Deleted; we don't have enough information to determine the copyright status of this photo. Dianna (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Durham light infantry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged {{NoRightsReserved}}. The uploader claims, "created by owner for wiki usage" [1]. But this is a photograph of soldiers at the Second Battle of Ypres in the First World War. Certainly the photograph was not created for use on Wikipedia, and almost certainly the uploader is not the photographer. No information is provided about the photographer, source, or publication history of the photograph. —Bkell (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, the photo itself names the photographer as one Ernest F. Ghant. So I guess we know the name of the photographer, at least. —Bkell (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a photo archivist for a British military regiment I am aware of many photographs by Ernest Ghant of Durrington, near Larkhill, which is a military garrison, on Salisbury Plain. He was one of many photographers who had access to military barracks during the first world war. He earned a living taking photographs of soldiers and selling them copies. In this particular case the photo has an X above one soldier identified as Thomas Bonney. The Durham light infantry had a training barracks at Larkhill during WW1 and the person marked is quite probably Sergeant 18688, Thomas Bonney, 11th Battalion DLI, a miner aged 22 on enlistment, from Ouston, near Birtley, killed in action 31 March 1918 and buried at Moreuil Communal Cemetery. His brother William Bonney who was also a miner and served in 11DLI, was killed in action on 20 September 1917, and is buried at Cement House Cemetery, Langemark. Under UK Law copyright remains with the photographer for 70 years following the death of the photographer. The same photograph is used on this website:- http://armyservicenumbers.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/durham-light-infantry-1st-2nd.html Richard Harvey (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know when the photographer, Ernest Ghant, died? —Bkell (talk) 19:38, 11 March 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lipkany, Cloth & Linen Street.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Tagged {{PD-US}}, but neither the file description page nor the source of the photograph [2] gives a date for the photograph or any information about the photographer or publication history, so there is no evidence for the public-domain claim. —Bkell (talk) 21:42, 10 March 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.