Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 13



File:Jtgbristol.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Jtgbristol.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Scanned from a printed source? Eeekster (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2012 (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:The J*Lu Blog Logo.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:The J*Lu Blog Logo.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Website logo. No evidence of permission. Eeekster (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2012 (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:DezmonBriscoe2009.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:DezmonBriscoe2009.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * also: '''File:Dezmon Briscoe versus Iowa State in 2009.jpg
 * Photograph from a football match, sourced to the football club's Flickr account, where it is marked as cc-by-sa; however, the description on Flickr also attributes it to AP. No explanation given how and why an AP photo should be releasable under cc-by-sa. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That photostream where I got the photo is owned/operated by another website outside of flicker.com. I read where they marked the photo cc-by-sa, but did not notice where at the very end of their description of the photo they also attributed it to the AP. That certainly makes it confusing. Kmanblue (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2012 (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:Du Brulwskulls.1.04.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Du Brulwskulls.1.04.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Tagged, but the description says "Copyright University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry". No evidence is provided that the UIC College of Dentistry has actually released all copyrights. —Bkell (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just noticed that the uploader is User:Billbike, and the summary says that William S. Bike (presumably the uploader) is the curator of the College of Dentistry photo collection. However, there is still a contradiction between the tag and the copyright notice in the description. —Bkell (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The photo was shot by and is owned by the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry. I, William S. Bike User:billbike, am the curator of the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry photo collection. I hereby certify that we release the photo to the public domain and would like it on Wikipeidia. —billbike (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.248.97.197 (talk)
 * Please send evidence of permission to OTRS. See WP:IOWN for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (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:Dajipur.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Tagged, but the summary credits the image to a Web site. —Bkell (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2012 (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:TJsm.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Claimed to be self-created, but a URL is given as the source. The source URL credits the image to a paper published in an academic journal. No evidence is provided that the uploader is the copyright holder. —Bkell (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2012 (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:Freddie.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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * It says "(Louise Ritchie, FreddoFiles.com, 2005)". Does this mean that the photo was taken from the "FreddoFiles.com" website? In either case, we have two orphaned photos of two unidentified guys called Freddie. I doubt that such a photo would be useful. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2012 (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:Nightlife.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Overwritten file: two in one. One file is from Flickr according to Skyscrapercity, but I can't find the Flickr file information page, so I can't tell what licence the image has on Flickr. The other image needs evidence of permission from Daniel Lee. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I found which returns the URL to the Flickr file information page if you know the URL to the file. The Flickr file information page is here and the file is listed as "all rights reserved", which is not a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Map Shore End 2012.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Map Shore End 2012.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a map until 70 years after the map artist died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Map Ground Floor 2012.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Map Ground Floor 2012.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a map until 70 years after the map artist died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Map First Floor, South End 2012.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Map First Floor, South End 2012.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a map until 70 years after the map artist died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 01 Of 20.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 01 Of 20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 02 Of 20.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 02 Of 20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 04 Of 20.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 04 Of 20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 05 Of 20.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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 05 Of 20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 08 Of 20.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 08 Of 20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 12 Of 20.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 12 Of 20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 13 Of 20.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 13 Of 20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 19 Of 20.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Fact 19 Of 20.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2012 (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:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Hamster Wheel Sign 2012.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Weston Super-Mare Grand Pier Hamster Wheel Sign 2012.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Violates Commons:COM:FOP. You can't take a photo of a sign until 70 years after the sign designer died. Stefan2 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2012 (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:Courageous screenshot.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Used in "Box Office" section of movie article. Completely unnecessary for reader's understanding of subject (i.e., fails NFC criterion 8). Article already contains poster. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 ⚡ 18:10, 13 October 2012 (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:Arnoldo Castillo.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * This photo was taken in 1981, so it is currently copyrighted in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2012 (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:Ghiberti components of the doors to the Florence Baptistery.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Ghiberti components of the doors to the Florence Baptistery.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The current image appears here and at other numerous places in a smaller resolution. The current image seems to be contained in the previous revision. Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally took this photograph, and other photographs of related components of the doors, at the Art Institute of Chicago on July 6th, 2007, where they were being exhibited. Photography by patrons was specifically allowed.

What is your problem? What is the problem with taking a picture, in a public setting, where photography is encouraged, of 500+ year old pieces of bronze? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your link...THE REASON IT LOOKS THE SAME IS I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE EXACT, THE EXACT SAME PIECE MYSELF AS IS SHOWN IN THE CATALOG. PICTURES OF THE SAME THING COME OUT LOOKING...THE SAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Below, you state that "MD5 checksum and EXIF differ."

So the files are different. Just taken at the same location, under the same lighting conditions, probably with similar cameras.

Your problem is the images end up looking alike? You think the bronze should have flowed or dulled or shifted patterns?

Seriously, really, what is your problem?

Please see the following discussions:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Original_casting_from_the_bronze_doors_made_by_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.jpg
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_Gates_of_Paradise_bronze_doors.jpg
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Ghiberti_components_of_the_doors_to_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Now_and_Later_wiki.jpg
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Farley_wiki.jpg

These have all been flagged by Stefan2 as 'possibly unfree' based on what, I don't know. The last two seem to be flagged out of spite and vindictiveness.

The net result will be a reduction is the quality (particularly the comparison of poor copies to the original works on the Florence Baptistery) of the Wikipedia, based on what? I haven't gotten a straight answer yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 October 2012 (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:Panel from Lorenzo Ghiberti's Gates of Paradise bronze doors.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Panel from Lorenzo Ghiberti& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Is this the same as the photo here? Looks like a 3D object, so I don't think PD-Art applies. Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally took this photograph, and other photographs of related components of the doors, at the Art Institute of Chicago on July 6th, 2007, where they were being exhibited. Photography by patrons was specifically allowed.

What is your problem? What is the problem with taking a picture, in a public setting, where photography is encouraged, of 500+ year old pieces of bronze?

I looked at your link...THE REASON IT LOOKS THE SAME IS I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE EXACT, THE ABSOLUTELY EXACT SAME ONE-OF-A-KIND PIECE MYSELF AS IS SHOWN IN THE CATALOG. PICTURES OF THE SAME THING COME OUT LOOKING...THE SAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

MD5 checksum and EXIF differ. Same resolution and same crop. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "MD5 checksum and EXIF differ."

So the files are different. Just taken at the same location, under the same lighting conditions, probably with similar cameras.

Your problem is the images end up looking alike? You think the bronze should have flowed or dulled or shifted patterns?

Seriously, really, what is your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the following discussions:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Original_casting_from_the_bronze_doors_made_by_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.jpg
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_Gates_of_Paradise_bronze_doors.jpg
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Ghiberti_components_of_the_doors_to_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Now_and_Later_wiki.jpg
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Farley_wiki.jpg

These have all been flagged by Stefan2 as 'possibly unfree' based on what, I don't know. The last two seem to be flagged out of spite and vindictiveness.

The net result will be a reduction is the quality (particularly the comparison of poor copies to the original works on the Florence Baptistery) of the Wikipedia, based on what? I haven't gotten a straight answer yet.
 * 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:Panel from Lorenzo Ghiberti's bronze doors for the Florence Baptistery.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Panel from Lorenzo Ghiberti& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Is this the same photo? 3D, so PD-Art doesn't apply. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally took this photograph, and other photographs of related components of the doors, at the Art Institute of Chicago on July 6th, 2007, where they were being exhibited. Photography by patrons was specifically allowed.

What is your problem? What is the problem with taking a picture, in a public setting, where photography is encouraged, of 500+ year old pieces of bronze?

I looked at your link...THE REASON IT LOOKS THE SAME IS I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE EXACT, THE ABSOLUTELY EXACT SAME ONE-OF-A-KIND PIECE MYSELF AS IS SHOWN IN THE CATALOG. PICTURES OF THE SAME THING COME OUT LOOKING...THE SAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

$ md5sum Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti\'s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg splash_img.jpg 6a627507d130615a7504669b7d5e0a1d Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti's_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg 6a627507d130615a7504669b7d5e0a1d splash_img.jpg The files seem to be identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"seem to be identical"...that's what you've got?

below they don't "seem" to be identical, they ARE different...


 * "The arctic.edu version has EXIF but the file on Wikipedia does not. MD5 checksum differs (even after removing the EXIF using <tt>exiftool -all= filename.jpg</tt>)."

So the files are different. Just taken at the same location, under the same lighting conditions, probably with similar cameras.

Your problem is the images end up looking alike? You think the bronze should have flowed or dulled or shifted patterns?

Seriously, really, what is your problem?

Please see the following discussions:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Original_casting_from_the_bronze_doors_made_by_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.jpg
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_Gates_of_Paradise_bronze_doors.jpg
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Ghiberti_components_of_the_doors_to_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Now_and_Later_wiki.jpg
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Farley_wiki.jpg

These have all been flagged by Stefan2 as 'possibly unfree' based on what, I don't know. The last two seem to be flagged out of spite and vindictiveness.

The net result will be a reduction is the quality (particularly the comparison of poor copies to the original works on the Florence Baptistery) of the Wikipedia, based on what? I haven't gotten a straight answer yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

OK, can you explain this? If the image isn't a copyright violation, then why are the MD5 and SHA1 checksums identical? $ md5sum *.jpg 6a627507d130615a7504669b7d5e0a1d Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti's_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg 6a627507d130615a7504669b7d5e0a1d splash_img.jpg $ sha1sum *.jpg da93cbb0ca2deffb6e4f2d8d79d4d54df1e3a86c Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti's_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg da93cbb0ca2deffb6e4f2d8d79d4d54df1e3a86c splash_img.jpg Note: Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti's_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg" = [[Media:Panel from Lorenzo Ghiberti's bronze doors for the Florence Baptistery.jpg]]
 * "splash_img.jpg" = http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/ghiberti/images/splash_img.jpg

I have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.

All I know is that I went to the Chicago Art Institute with my wife to an exhibition of original panels from the "Gates of Paradise" doors. I took pictures, in a museum setting, under museum lighting conditions, with a Canon digital camera. I uploaded those images into ArcSoft Photostudio 2000 and saved them as JPEG files. What will it take to satisfy you? Pictures of me, with a camera to eye, taking the pictures?

I KNOW THIS.

What ever happened to the concept of 'good faith' editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 23:48, 13 October 2012 (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:Original casting from the bronze doors made by Lorenzo Ghiberti.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Original casting from the bronze doors made by Lorenzo Ghiberti.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Is it the same as this photo? Seems to be 3D so PD-Art doesn't apply. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally took this photograph, and other photographs of related components of the doors, at the Art Institute of Chicago on July 6th, 2007, where they were being exhibited. Photography by patrons was specifically allowed.

What is your problem? What is the problem with taking a picture, in a public setting, where photography is encouraged, of 500+ year old pieces of bronze?

I looked at your link...THE REASON IT LOOKS THE SAME IS I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE EXACT, THE ABSOLUTELY EXACT SAME ONE-OF-A-KIND PIECE MYSELF AS IS SHOWN IN THE CATALOG. PICTURES OF THE SAME THING COME OUT LOOKING...THE SAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Same resolution. Seems to be cropped exactly the same. The arctic.edu version has EXIF but the file on Wikipedia does not. MD5 checksum differs (even after removing the EXIF using <tt>exiftool -all= filename.jpg</tt>). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "The arctic.edu version has EXIF but the file on Wikipedia does not. MD5 checksum differs (even after removing the EXIF using <tt>exiftool -all= filename.jpg</tt>)."

So the files are different. Just taken at the same location, under the same lighting conditions, probably with similar cameras.

Your problem is the images end up looking alike? You think the bronze should have flowed or dulled or shifted patterns?

Seriously, really, what is your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why your images have the exact same crop and the exact same resolution? Can you explain why none of your photos contains EXIF metadata? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what EXIF metadata is, or where it comes from.


 * I cropped it, probably using Photostudio back then, to get the backgrounds containing other patrons out of the image. I assume I cropped it the same as anyone else might crop it.


 * The pictures were taken with a Canon digital camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the following discussions:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Original_casting_from_the_bronze_doors_made_by_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.jpg
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_Gates_of_Paradise_bronze_doors.jpg
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Ghiberti_components_of_the_doors_to_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Now_and_Later_wiki.jpg
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Farley_wiki.jpg

These have all been flagged by Stefan2 as 'possibly unfree' based on what, I don't know. The last two seem to be flagged out of spite and vindictiveness.

The net result will be a reduction is the quality (particularly the comparison of poor copies to the original works on the Florence Baptistery) of the Wikipedia, based on what? I haven't gotten a straight answer yet.
 * 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:Farley wiki.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Derivative work of product packaging. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where do I complain about abusive stalking by an editor who doesn't like having to admit that image files are actually different?

Now you're just being petty and vengeful.

Seriously, tell me how to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the following discussions:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Original_casting_from_the_bronze_doors_made_by_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.jpg
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_Gates_of_Paradise_bronze_doors.jpg
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Ghiberti_components_of_the_doors_to_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Now_and_Later_wiki.jpg
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Farley_wiki.jpg

These have all been flagged by Stefan2 as 'possibly unfree' based on what, I don't know. The last two seem to be flagged out of spite and vindictiveness.

The net result will be a reduction is the quality (particularly the comparison of poor copies to the original works on the Florence Baptistery) of the Wikipedia, based on what? I haven't gotten a straight answer yet.


 * you've posted, I don't know, 3 or 4 responses above, but nothing about reporting you, so I muddled through the help screens and got here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Stalking_and_abuse_by_an_editor


 * don't know if it's the right place or not, but you don't seem willing to help with this...

Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2012 (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:Now and Later wiki.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Now and Later wiki.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of product packaging. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where do I complain about abusive stalking by an editor who doesn't like having to admit that image files are actually different?

Now you're just being petty and vengeful.

Seriously, tell me how to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the following discussions:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Original_casting_from_the_bronze_doors_made_by_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.jpg
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_Gates_of_Paradise_bronze_doors.jpg
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Ghiberti_components_of_the_doors_to_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Now_and_Later_wiki.jpg
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Farley_wiki.jpg

These have all been flagged by Stefan2 as 'possibly unfree' based on what, I don't know. The last two seem to be flagged out of spite and vindictiveness.

The net result will be a reduction is the quality (particularly the comparison of poor copies to the original works on the Florence Baptistery) of the Wikipedia, based on what? I haven't gotten a straight answer yet.


 * you've posted, I don't know, 3 or 4 responses above, but nothing about reporting you, so I muddled through the help screens and got here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Stalking_and_abuse_by_an_editor


 * don't know if it's the right place or not, but you don't seem willing to help with this...
 * 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:Wilhelm Reich in his mid-twenties.JPG
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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: no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Wilhelm Reich in his mid-twenties.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * , and Commons:Commons:Simple photographs suggest that the threshold of originality for photos is extremely low in Austria, so I'm not convinced that this would qualify as a simple photograph. It says that the photo is in the public domain in the United States, but it doesn't say why the photo is in the public domain in the United States. The only indicated publication of the photo is from 2005, and if the photo is anonymous and first published in 2005, then it is copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since it was taken, regardless of the copyright status in Austria. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The image was taken circa 1922 in Austria. The reason I believe it to be PD in the United States is that the PD-Austria tag says an image is PD in Austria if: "For simple photograph (lichtbild), such as passport photos, it was either published more than 50 years ago or it was taken more than 50 years ago and never published within 50 years of its creation." That applies to this image. It then goes on to say: "Austrian works are currently in the public domain in the United States if their copyright had expired in Austria on the U.S. date of restoration (January 1, 1996)." That would apply to this image too (taken in 1922, not published within 50 years of creation, i.e. before 1972, so far as we know). I don't know what you mean by "simple photograph". It's a photograph of Wilhelm Reich in a cafe taken by a friend, when Reich was in his mid-20s, before he was well-known. It's not a professional shot or one with artistic merit, if that's what you mean. And anyway the tag says "Austrian works" are in the PD in the US if ..., not "Austrian simple photographs," if that's the distinction you're relying on. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not enough that an Austrian photo was in the public domain in Austria in 1996. If the photo wasn't published before 1 March 1989, it has to comply with . If the photo was published before 1 March 1989, it needs to comply with either (requires publication before 1923) or  (requires publication without copyright notice or copyright renewal). This doesn't seem to be a passport photo or a satellite photo, so I guess it's not a simple photo, meaning that PD-Austria doesn't apply at all, but I've asked at Commons:COM:VPC for a clarification. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the photo is an Austrian work (was published in Austria first, without publication in US within 30 days) and PD in Austria, it's PD in US if the URAA didn't restore copyright (i.e. if it was PD in Austria in 1996) - assuming US formalities weren't met, which is very unlikely here. If the photo was first published in the US (eg in the Danto book, the only known publication at the moment), then it's a US work and it needs to comply with to be PD in US. PS It's true that the image is probably not a "simple photograph", since the concept has been virtually abolished. Rd232 talk 23:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Stefan, could you cite your sources for this, please, including a reliable source for your definition of "simple photograph"? What the templates say (the ones you are linking to) and what you are saying, are not the same thing. Facts: I don't know when it was first published. I know only that it was taken in Austria circa 1922 by an unknown author, and to the best of my knowledge (and I have searched in all the obvious places), it was not published within 50 years, i.e. before 1972. It is therefore PD in Austria, and was PD in Austria in 1996. As I understand it, according to Wikipedia's templates, this latter point makes it PD in the United States too. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For US copyrights, see commons:COM:HIRTLE. If unpublished, there's no difference between US or Austrian works. Just use the simple instructions under "unpublished works". If published, it gets a lot more complex, and you need to know when, where and how the photo was published. Also, the trick is to know whether the photo was in the public domain in the source country on 1 January 1996, which means messing with the Austrian definition for simple photos. Commons:Commons:Simple photographs lists some court rulings, but they are all in German, so I can't read them. It also says that "The threshold is very low, i.e. basically all photos are 'works'." I assume that this statement is a summary of the result of the court rulings. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Stefan, the WP templates refer to "works" in Austria, not "simple photographs." That's a distinction that only you have introduced here, so my question is what is your source for that distinction (and why it would apply here). Your source can't be legal decisions in German if you don't read German. So please let me know what your source is. As things stand, the WP templates appear to say that this work is PD in Austria, and was PD in Austria in 1996, and is therefore PD in the United States too. So we need a reliable source showing that the WP templates are wrong, or that there is something about this image that means they are not applicable. As for when it was first published, I don't know. It is an old image and has probably been published several times in one of the 50+ biographies of Reich. I don't know when the first publication was, but it appears to have been done without notice of copyright because no one knows who the photographer was. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point that the work only becomes (AFAIK!) an "Austrian work" in the eyes of US law by virtue of first publication in Austria. Based on the information available it was first published in the US, and is therefore a US work, and to be PD needs to comply with (in this case) - which it doesn't. The whole simple/complex argument is a complete red herring if the work is not an Austrian work, which it appears not to be.  Rd232 talk 15:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The template lists all kinds of photos, both complex and simple. If simple, it is protected for 50 years from creation. If complex, it is protected for the life of the photographer plus 70 years. The template also has a link to a page about an Austrian court verdict. The template suggests that the 50-year term only applies to passport photos, satellite images and the like. This is not a passport photo or a satellite image. See also the template talk page: User:Lupo quoted a document saying that "it suffices that another photographer would have shot a different image" for the image to get the longer term (life+70 years). There's a list of 6 files and User:Lupo wrote that the shorter term presumably only applies to one of those photos, but all photos have since been deleted, so it's not possible to check how simple or complex they were. Also, the United States copyright status depends entirely on when and if the photo was published. The page Commons:COM:HIRTLE lists all/most possible situations with links to Commons licence templates which usually cite the exact section in US law describing this matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2012 (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:Siegfried Translateur.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * 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 ⚡  01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Reading at Template talk:PD-Austria, I get the impression that this photo is way too complex for PD-Austria. Also, where was the photo first published? If it was first published on this website, then it is copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since it was taken. Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2012 (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.