Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 July 3



File:Lawrence and Duncan Ogilvie, Dundry 1947.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Lawrence and Duncan Ogilvie, Dundry 1947.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * UK copyright law stipulates that copyright exists for 70 years after the author's death; this picture hasn't even existed for 70 years yet Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Scan by and photo owned by me the contributor (in picture) who is the son of L Ogilvie. Photo taken by contributor's mother. I the contributor am the only child of my parents and own this photo since their deaths. No copyright problem.Duncanogi (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the uploader is the copyright holder, then that's fine, and it shouldn't be deleted after all. – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2011 (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:Epic Fail.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Epic Fail.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unclear copyright status of the background image, likely copy-vio. Acather96 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete One source is here, and that page states their images were just found on the Internet (or received via email). Original date the camera put on the photo was June 22, 2007, although the accident supposedly happened in mid-July 2007.  The server date from the linked site was late July 2007, so that site had them shortly after they were taken one way or another.  No indication of any license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (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:Anderson, John Crawford.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Anderson, John Crawford.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * PD-Pre1978 requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 21:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that? The painting has apparently been on display since the 1930s. The definition of "publication" was not defined at the time, but something on permanent display like that, if photographs etc. were allowed, probably would qualify as published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Alabama Supreme Court building allowed photography, or listed the photo in a brochure or flyer, then it was indeed published. Since that's nearly a 50-year period of public display in a public building, I'd say it's overwhelmingly likely that the criteria for "publication" were met at some point during its history. – Quadell (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (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:Aftermath of the Bath School Disaster.png

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Aftermath of the Bath School Disaster.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * PD-Pre1978 requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 21:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be astounded if such a relevant photograph of an internationally-historic event had never been published. This was news around the world, mentioned in countless articles and books. Is it reasonable to think this photo, widely reproduced now, had been hidden for 51 years? – Quadell (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (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:Algellman.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Algellman.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * PD-Pre1978 requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 21:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this photo is from a private collection, it seems plausible (to me) that it was not published before 1978. – Quadell (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2011 (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:Algelman.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Algelman.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * PD-Pre1978 requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 21:39, 3 July 2011 (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:AmonLeopoldGöth.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:AmonLeopoldGöth.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The PD tag is invalid, as there is no evidence that the image was published in the United States. Dominic·t 21:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be published in the United States -- published anywhere is what triggers those sections of copyright law. Normally works first published elsewhere got their copyrights restored by the URAA, which is why the tag specifies first published in the U.S. (as those were not eligible for restoration), but  it looks like the tag is claiming that this photo was from captured war material, in which case the tag could well be accurate (the copyrights on those were not restored either, by a separate provision).  But, there really is no source info that I could find.  If Poland would be considered the country of origin, it's also very possible this would have not been restored either, as it was likely not copyrighted in 1996 there.  But no evidence for that either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2011 (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:Andrew Chrucky.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Andrew Chrucky.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The pre-1978 PD tag is questionable, as there is no indication of this image's publication date and, if anything, the source suggests that it is 1998. Dominic·t 21:39, 3 July 2011 (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:Armanddenis2.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Armanddenis2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * PD-Pre1978 requires a work to have been published prior to 1978, and this does not appear to have ever been published. Dominic·t 21:39, 3 July 2011 (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:Arnold crescent 1947.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Arnold crescent 1947.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There is no source indicating that this is a work of the US Navy, and PD-Pre1978 does not apply, as this does not appear to have been published. Dominic·t 21:39, 3 July 2011 (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:PIPAC.jpg

 * 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: withdrawn –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * File:PIPAC.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * An IP editor, and not the image uploader, put the GFDL tag here. No evidence is given that the IP editor is the uploader, so it is quite possible that the uploader did not intend for GFDL licensing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Incorrect; GFDL was on the original upload. I don't see any reason to doubt the license.  The same user uploaded a number of photos around the same time, taken with the same camera and having the same license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Didn't do my research quite well enough; saw the IP add a tag to a tagless page, but I didn't notice that there had also been a tag originally and since removed. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:14, 4 July 2011 (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:Pisco sour.JPG

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Pisco sour.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Can't find the image on flickr, just on a blog where there is no notice of copyright permission. With no URL to the flickr page, we can't verify the licensing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:17, 3 July 2011 (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:Pisco uva.JPG

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Pisco uva.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Can't find the image on flickr, just on a blog where there is no notice of copyright permission. With no URL to the flickr page, we can't verify the licensing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:18, 3 July 2011 (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:SS Euripides Rubio jpg.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * File:SS Euripides Rubio jpg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The OTRS ticket referenced here, 2010021110004952, does not contain a usable permission. OTRS clearance was not placed on this image by the OTRS agent who handled the letter, but rather by the uploader. See also Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 30. The letter sent in by the uploader, unfortunately, does not contain a usable license. We either need permission as per Declaration of consent for all enquiries or to otherwise establish that this is public domain if it is to be retained (unless it can be established under WP:NFC...unlikely for all instances in which it is use, and not doable for the main article as it contains a free image already. Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure whether to delete or keep. On one hand, the image is undoubtedly non-free, but I also cannot find another image of this individual whose source isn't a known copyright violator. While this image is likely his official govt portrait and would clearly be PD, I can't be sure. If anything, I would prefer something with a clearer copyright history, but if none are available, I'd prefer to stick with one that is clean and give a non-free justification for its use. I will happily alter the justification based upon community consensus on the matter. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But, as I noted, we already have a free image of him in his article. :) In fact, it's the one you link to from Findagrave, although it's flipped for some reason. At least, I hope it's free. It seems like it is. (This is fortunate, because it's really doubtful that we'd be able to do a FUR fitting NFC for each of the five articles containing this picture.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as replaceable non-free image, since everybody (me included) agrees there are official government images of this man around (maybe not on line). --damiens.rf 17:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a (slightly distorted I think) photo of him here) (direct image here) which is most likely the official photo; others (with a flag in back) appear to be subsequent alterations of that. Would be nice to get some source info on that though.  As for this one, if the OTRS is invalid, then delete unless better info on the painting comes to light. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2011 (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.