Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 March 13



File:Ray Bowden.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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, no evidence of publication prior to 1989.

No proof that this is PD-UK. Even if it is, the image may still be under copyright in the US and it needs to be PD there to be hosted on Wikimedia's US servers. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ''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.

File:Krait-crew.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Kept, was PD in Australia in 1996, and is therefore PD in the US now.

May be PD in Australia, but is it PD in the USA? Stifle (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; the photo was taken in 1943. As per the advice on Wikicommons Australian photos taken prior to 31st December 1954 are in the PD in the US. This is image 045421 on the AWM's database available via the collections search tab at and its copyright status is listed as 'Copyright expired - public domain'. Could you please withdraw this nomination for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I second this. The Australian War Memorial (from where the image was obtained) clearly states that this image is copyright expired. That applies worldwide, surely. Regardless, I have to question why American copyright law would overide Australian copyright law when it relates to images taken or held in Australia. If this was the case, then surely an overwhelming majority of images on Wikipedia would need to be deleted. This would basically make it impossible to provide any images relating to Australian military history topics and impact upon the standard of Wikipedia entries. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * US law is screwy. They also don't accept that rule of the shorter term (which means that hypothetically, it would go into the public domain in the US at the same time as Australia because they've got the shortest term). But then again, URAA comes into play here. ViperSnake151 13:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia's servers are in the USA, the copyright status of the image in the USA is what matters. Unless we can conclusively show that the image is public domain, we can't just assume it. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the AWM's database? - the image is clearly labeled 'public domain' and the date it was taken is given as 1943. The advice at Wikicommons I linked above states that this means that the photo is PD in the US. Non-U.S. copyrights also states that Australian photos which were out of copyright on 1 January 1996 are PD in the US - copyright on Australian government photographs like this one lasts 50 years, so this became PD in Australia and the US in 1993 and remains PD. The status of WW2-era Australian photos has been discussed many times before, and the result has always been that they're PD in both Australia and the US. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Images that make this claim should be tagged PD-US-1996. I've done so now. If we Aussies would get in the habit of using it in addition to PD-Australia for pre-1946 works, queries like this would not arise so often. Hesperian 03:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This image is PD in both Australia and the US, under the URAA images who's copyright had expired prior to the agreement being ratified in the country of origin did not and could not under URAA have copyright restored in the US. This has already been tested and upheld with images of Donald Bradman. Gnangarra 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Gnangarra. Claims that all Australian images published before 1955 are in the public domain in the US are false, because post-1946 images were still in the public domain in Australia at the URAA start date of January 1 1996, and therefore the US affords them exactly the same protection as if they were US works. However, all Australian images published by 1946 are in the public domain in the US, because these were in the public domain in their country of origin on the URAA start date. With respect to this image, it was published in Australia in 1943; it was never under copyright in the US because it was not registered; it fell into the public domain in Australiaa in 1993; when the US retrospectively restored copyrights as part of the URAA, it did not restore copyright to material that was in the public domain in its home country on January 1 1996. There, technically, this image has always been in the public domain in the US. Hesperian 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further: The only problem with this image is that no-one bothered to tag it with a US license. The PD-Australia tag claims only that it is in the public domain in Australia; this is insufficient. I have now tagged it also with PD-US-1996. Hesperian 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... if images need to be PD in the US then why even have a PD-Australia tag? Cheers for getting to the bottom of this though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * because PD aus applies to images between 1946 and 1955 as well Gnangarra 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ''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.

File:Comedian Jay Dee.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of permission to license as PD. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  16:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Madoff Leaving Courthouse.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a screenshot from a TV program. Do you notice the poorly done deinterlacing? Jesse Viviano (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.