Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 7

 &lt; September 6 September 8 &gt;

File:WEWS MX 93.jpg

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * File:WEWS MX 93.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Vjmlhds ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

A non-free replaceable file declared as free. — Ирука13 07:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, mislabelled non-free file with no obvious use in the article The Morning Exchange. Salavat (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Queen of Pakistan letter to King of Iraq.jpg

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. As stated below, there's a lot of (well-reasoned) discussion and disagreement about whether "publication" actually occurred and/or whether the Queen was acting as the Queen of the UK or of Pakistan. Either way, no prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD - F ASTILY   07:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Queen of Pakistan letter to King of Iraq.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Peter Ormond ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Even assuming that the letter was published in 1955, it only entered the public domain in 2006, which is 10 years later than 1996. — Ирука13 04:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  07:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe: The letter was clearly made by Queen Elizabeth II in Buckingham Palace, so depending on the date of publication this could be public domain per Template:PD-UKGov. Whether this is PD really depends on whether it was published before 1969 1972 (per c:File:UK Crown copyright flowchart.pdf). Also note the expiry of crown copyright is worldwide (i.e. URAA doesn't apply). —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  15:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. The current year is 2023. 2006 was seventeen years ago. If an image entered the public domain in 2006, it is in the public domain in 2023. jp×g 21:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think he's referring to the URAA date (1996), but that doesn't apply to crown copyright works. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Someone seems to have tagged this with PD-EdictGov. However, this is a letter, not a judicial decision/statutory law or something like that, so that tag doesn't apply. See Edict of government for more information. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  11:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to commons. This was done in the Queen's official role. Per User:Matr1x-101, that could make it Template:PD-UKGov if she did it in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. Even if it's in her role as Queen of Pakistan, it's still not copyrighted per Commons:Template:PD-Pakistan which also says govt works get 50 years of protection.
 * FYI, this is not a personal letter. This is a diplomatic letter of credence (which is how I found this) which is issued in the name of the head of state for a diplomat to present to another head of state in a diplomatic ritual. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 23:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the tricky part is proving publication before 1972. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't sending a letter to a foreign head of state publication? Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 16:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not by UK and US standards, see c:Commons:Publication. But the point is the distribution/communication/transmission of copies to the general public is required, and I have some doubts that happened by 1972. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  20:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * letters of credence are typically presented in a public ceremony. Chess (talk) (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply) 14:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * but can we really prove that a public ceremony occured? There is probably a good chance that it was just some ceremony witnessed by some high-level diplomats, and not really publication. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If I am not missing anything, then UK Crown Copyright would have expired regardless of publication 50 years from creation, and as the UK government expressly indicated that they will not pursue Crown Copyright in the US even if it is still copyrighted there, that would be fine by us.

However, I highly doubt that it falls under UK copyright, since the Queen was acting as Queen of Pakistan under the direction of the Pakistani government, and under Pakistani law the letter may well never have been published so that Pakistani government copyright may still be in effect. In my mind, a mere handing over of a sealed envelope in a public ceremony is insufficient for publication, regardless of the number of people present at the ceremony itself. I would assume that the same holds for handing a single copy to the Foreign minister, although then at least two copies exist. Felix QW (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Trains art.jpg

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Trains art.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) &#x20;– uploaded by Ɱ ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works of art in the US  F ASTILY   08:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is from after March 1989, the mural is copyrighted.  Abzeronow (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.