Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 4



File:Near Field Communication simple-explantion EN.webm

 * 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Near Field Communication simple-explantion EN.webm ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The file is marked as cc-by-sa-3.0, however I see no evidence of such license for the file on the source website or elsewhere. Moreover, a version of the video is uploaded by simpleshow on their youtube channel and is licensed under Standard YouTube License which is not creative commons or free by any means. Looks like the uploader uploaded another file which is also in the same situation, license-wise.  C yb er XR ef talk 07:55, 4 December 2013 (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:Empress steamer.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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Empress steamer.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There is insufficient evidence presented as to when the artist died. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the link at http://web.archive.org/, there is:

Before reproducing materials, images and graphical elements from Library and Archives Canada's website, please read the copyright information found on the Important Notices page. Poster of the Canadian Pacific Railway, 1920 Canadian Pacific Railway, 1920 Source: Canadian Pacific - Fast Luxurious Service to Canada Library and Archives Canada/C-136248 © Public Domain nlc-5069 Therefore this is PD-US. I have re-tagged the image. JYolkowski // talk 04:10, 25 December 2013 (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:Wragge.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Wragge.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Insufficient data provided to confirm photogrpaher died prior to 1926. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep . Wragge died in 1922 and so of necessity the date of creation was pre-1923, so there's no question of URAA revival requiring evidence that the photographer died before 1926. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All we know is that the photograph was taken no later than 1922. However, there is no evidence that it was published at that time. The requirement is that it must have been published before 1923, as opposed to simply being taken before 1923. Unfortunately, there is no information about the publication history of the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (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:Subroto01.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Subroto01.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

If the latter this might have a URAA revival. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is likely to be an official picture, but there's not enough data to determine if the British (50) or Indian(60) rule should apply.
 * If it is British, then PD-UKGov. If Indian, then db-f9 (due to URAA). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2013 (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:Leopold Kessler in Africa.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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Leopold Kessler in Africa.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

Photograph was taken in South Africa, it is a self-portrait of Leopold Kessler. This photo was used in publications outside the USA in several publications and belongs to the Kessler family archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphaelk75 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Photo itself is dated 1892(so possibly pre 1923), but there is no information given as to source country, which would establish the cut-off for URAA if any. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1923 regardless of the source country. If it was first published in South Africa, then it is typically enough to show that it was published before 1946. The problem is that there isn't any information about the publication history of the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly (not possibly) pre-1923 so no potential for URAA revival. As frequently confirmed here, Wikipedia policy is to accept creation date as publication date given paucity of archival data at the time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This photo is different from a painting. Although it would have been quite unusual for a Picasso to keep one of his paintings hidden and unpublished for years, it is very normal for a private photograph to remain in private hands for decades, uncopied and unpublished. Unlike a painting from a galleried artist, whose works can be assumed to have been published sans evidence to the contrary, a "personal" photo may not have been published until recently. – Quadell (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I understand. I've struck my 'keep' Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, for a different reason. Leopold Kessler apparently did not take this photo himself, since he's in it; the author is not specified, and is unknown. According to the Hirtle chart, the URAA only extends the copyright of works without a known author to 120 years from creation. Since this was created in 1892, this image had to have fallen into the public domain at the end of 2012. That's true whether or not the photo was ever previously published. (On the other hand, if we can be sure that Kessler really did create the work, then it won't be PD until 70 years after his death, at the end of 2014. But I don't think cameras allowed this sort of self-photograph in 1892.) – Quadell (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * However, an author doesn't become anonymous simply because you upload an image from an inexact source without giving correct source information. We do not have any evidence that the photographer is anonymous. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, Kessler was living in Rhodesia as a mining engineer is 1892. He did not have a family with him, and moved from place to place a lot. This photo was kept in a personal collection for (apparently) decades after Kessler died. I know that when I look through my deceased grandfather's old travel photos under similar circumstances, unless the photographer is written on the photo or something, it's fair to say the photographer is "unknown". – Quadell (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I can understand the logic of that. But why then did Sfan00 IMG (original tagger here) tag this one from the same archive as fit for transfer to Commons? If the photographer is unknown, as seems to be the case, then it doesn't go out of copyright until the end of 2026. Does placing a photograph in an archive constitute "publication" (I suppose it would if the archives, as likely, were open to the public) and do we know when these images were placed in their archives? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's really a separate case. No, placing a photo in an archive does not necessarily constitute publication. It's only published if it's available to the general public. The rule of thumb is, could any ol' member of the general public gain access to the work and (presumably) make a copy? If so, then it's published. My interpretation of the image description page is that Gabriel Kessler (Leopold's grandchild) received a collection of photos when Leopold died; that wouldn't be a public archive, and wouldn't be publication. But if it was a public archive at a library or something, that's different. – Quadell (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2013 (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:Max Oppenheimer - Portrait of Heinrich Mann.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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Max Oppenheimer - Portrait of Heinrich Mann.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Painter was active in Austria at the time of this work, meaning a 70 pma term might apply (and thus a possible URAA revival given the artist died in 1954). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The publication date is pre-1923 and thus PD in the USA (and tagged as such). I do know about revived URAA copyright, but that's not applicable (am I right?) Because Teresa Ries died in 1956, her work doesn't enter the public domain in the EU until 2027, so her images can't be uploaded onto Commons. But there oshould be no objection to a local upload on American servers, which is where the English Wikipedia is hosted. So why have you brought this here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If it can't be moved to Commons, it needs to be tagged as such.. Brought here for disscussion so that it's exact status can be determined.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't whether it can be moved to Commons. It's whether it can be uploaded on a Template:PD-US-1923-abroad to the English Wikipedia. That the work was published in 1902 is not in doubt and this page makes it unambiguously clear that it is therefore PD in US (in a section about URAA revived copyright incidentally, the very thing you are querying.)
 * I am new to Wikipedia, while I see you are a very exprienced user.I expect to be making a long series of museum exhibition article starts where the question of copyright will often arise. I thought I understood the pre-1923 rule and I am genuinely puzzled by your tags. I should be greatful for clarification. In particular are you saying that images published before 1923 are not necessarily PD in the US. If so can you point me to the sources so I may educate myself. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The "do not move to Commons" tag is a formality meant to ensure people don't get these files deleted accidentally. It is not, nor has it ever been, a criteria for keeping an image on the English Wikipedia. If you are worried about it, add it yourself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since this was first published before 1923, the URAA cannot possible restore copyright. It is considered PD in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The English Wikipedia does not consider the copyright in the country of origin, just in the US (this is not Commons). As this was first published (put on display) in 1913/1914, this is easily public domain in the US. Upload should be kept local, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Why doesn't the file description page document the pre-1923 publication in the U.S? Shouldn't it?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As a painting, it is officially considered "published" when it is presented to the public. In the cases of famous artists like these, that's reliably not long after the painting is finished. – Quadell (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question:, how do we know whether or not some of these paintings were commissioned by private collectors, and never exhibited in public? How do we know whether some were disliked by their artists, and stored unseen until their deaths? And why does original publication date say 2013? And how do we decide that a given artist is so "famous" that no evidence is required? Famous now, or back then? How famous?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You ask several questions here. As to "why does original publication date say 2013", that's an error on the image description page and should be corrected. (It was published in a book, but that is not its first publication.)
 * Your other questions relate to the possibility that this 1910 painting was withheld from the public until after 1923. Certainly, with private snapshots and the like, it's possible that a work is not published until long after its creation, and that can be relevant. (A 1910 work that was not published until after 1922 could be considered copyrighted in the U.S., if it was first published outside the U.S., and was not published in the U.S. within 30 days, and the work was not PD in its country of origin in 1996.) In this case, the work seems to have been mentioned in letters from around 1914, and the work was created by a professional artist as part of a public dispute with another artist, and it is mentioned in several books about art from the 1940s on, none of which mention that it was somehow hidden or revealed only recently.
 * It's difficult to have 100% certainty, just like it's difficult to be 100% certain that an uploader who claims he created a photo actually did so. But we should avoid copyright paranoia in cases like this; for works such as paintings that were "published" via public presentation, I don't believe any work created before 1923 has ever been ruled in court to have its copyright status restored by the URAA. – Quadell (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Info "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain."
 * I don't think my questions should be classified as "paranoia",, when the file description page says that the original publication date is 2013. And I don't think that it unreasonable to ask for a citation to the first publication. I don't think that being mentioned in a letter amounts to publication of a painting, does it? That requires a graphic reproduction, doesn't it? So what is the earliest record of reproduction of this painting? Isn't that the only relevant question here? I have done in depth research on the origin of historic photos to answer similar questions, and know that 100% certainty is not always possible.


 * Let me emphasize that I am not trying to keep this image of this painting off Wikipedia. I hope it stays here. This matter came to my attention because of a question at the Teahouse, where I am very active. My goal is to deepen my understanding of borderline copyright issues, and I hope we can engage on that good faith basis.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake. I've explained that. If you're active at The Teahouse, where indeed I did ask for clarification, thanks, you should expect that. What you're essentially asking for here, since this painting was created after 1909, is 'proof' that this very famous painting was published in English somewhere in the world. Never mind that it was the subject of a bitter plagiarism row at the time i.e. must surely have been shown and probably illustrated in a gallery catalogue.
 * Well you're only going to get that from specialist historians with access to specialist and expensive databases and certainly not from me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No need for evidence of English publication. French, Italian, German, Swedish, Russian or Hindi or any other language would suffice. Or reproduction before 1923 without words. If you, the uploader, are unable to provide the evidence that copyright does not apply, then perhaps we should confine ourselves to a text description of this art work, instead of an image.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In answer to your earlier questions, no, mention in a letter does not constitute publication. But it does offer evidence that it was seen, and displaying the painting to the public does constitute publication. The "earliest record of reproduction" is likely irrelevant, because it was "published" according to U.S. law when it was first presented to the public, even if it wasn't reproduced. Since most museums did not keep detailed records of which paintings were displayed when, I do think that it's unlikely we will have a written record of this painting's first presentation to the public. That's not the standard we've historically set for pre-1923 paintings by artists whose works were commonly held in galleries, and if decide to apply that setting, I suspect we would have to delete many hundreds or thousands of high-quality images that are actually in the public domain, simply due to a lack of gallery records. And I think that would be a shame. – Quadell (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an example would be Pablo Picasso's 1903  La Vie. This is a file which appeals to pre-1923 PD status and makes it clear that it can't be copied to Commons, but it doesn't provide a date of "publication", and as you say I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar high quality PD files in the same situation. This one is linked to five mainstream and three user space articles. Of course it was very remiss of me not to know the distinction between creation and publication (how often did I have to apologise for that?), but I suspect it's because in the case of art works no one really pays very much attention. That the NG lump the two under the same heading in Immunity From Seizure filing seems telling to me.

Can I just emphasise that was first raised here was the copyright reversion issue, and that was quickly resolved as not an issue. The question of publication versus creation was raised subsequently by the Teahouse folk, thanks. Once again can I ask them to cite a case where the issue was in fact challenged? After all Wikipedia never paid any attention to copyright reversion until a case was successfully brought. So let's see the case that should make us more careful about images like Picasso's La Vie, or for that matter my beloved Kokoschka Lotte Franzos. I truly love that painting, it is beautiful beyond measure, and I will fight for it. Teahouse can have the rest, hang them in the pantry, spoils of war, but I want my Lotte. I've written its owner, The Phillips Collection, Washington D.C., asking them if they can provide a pre-1923 publication date. I see BTW they've got a nice Van Gogh exhibition going which I might just turn my attention to if they cut me some slack ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)—
 * Keep Based on detailed information on publication of art works that kindly provided on my talk page, my concerns have been resolved and I now support keeping this image. Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  19:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cullen. And thanks for your help Quadell. I shan't repeat this through the other files. Take it as read. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Before 1978, an exhibition sometimes constituted publication according to US law. In particular:
 * The general public must have access to the exhibition, otherwise it isn't publication. It is irrelevant whether you had to pay an entrance fee or not. Compare with a book: you often have to pay to read a book. Some paintings are not shown to the public but are kept in private belonging to the painter, so verifying whether a painting has been exhibited is sometimes difficult.
 * The exhibition must have permitted photography. If it wasn't permitted to take photographs at the museum, then it isn't publication. See American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister: a painting was unpublished because the museum prohibited photography. On the other hand, in Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago, it was permitted to take photos of a statue on a public square in Chicago, so that statue was published. Thus, if you find out that a given painting was exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery in 1905, you need to figure out whether the National Portrait Gallery permitted photography in 1905. This is typically impossible to find out, so this requirement tends to be ignored on both Commons and Wikipedia.
 * The exhibition must have been with consent from the copyright holder. In many cases, museums exhibit paintings without permission from the copyright holder because there is a general permission in the copyright law which allows museums to exhibit objects. These provisions do not count. In many cases, this is impossible to prove, so this requirement is typically ignored on both Commons and Wikipedia. In the case Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, it was decided that copyright is transferred together with the work if you give someone the only copy of the work, unless copyright is explicitly mentioned in the contract you sign when giving away the object. However, in the case Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., it was decided that non-US law applies for determining the copyright holder of non-US works. Therefore, Pushman v. New York Graphic Society can only be used for US paintings, not for non-US paintings. It can also only be used for transfers of copies which were made before 1978. If a US museum owns the only copy of a US painting, then the museum is likely the copyright holder due to the Pushman ruling.
 * Generally speaking, it is very hard to tell whether a painting was published or not. This problem is sometimes discussed on Commons, and Commons has more or less accepted that the date of publication is impossible to find, so Commons typically uses the date of creation instead, which probably gives us some errors once in a while. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2013 (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:Elena Luksch-Makowsky - Self Portrait with her son Peter.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: Keep Per discussion below, we can presume it was published before 1923 and therefore is PD in the US. Anomie⚔ 03:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Elena Luksch-Makowsky - Self Portrait with her son Peter.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

Thusly as artist died in 1967, copyright revived by URAA? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Artist was in Germany at time of death, so 70 pma applies.
 * The publication date is pre-1923 and thus PD in the USA (and tagged as such). I do know about revived URAA copyright, but that's not applicable (am I right?) Because Teresa Ries died in 1956, her work doesn't enter the public domain in pthe EU until 2027, so her images can't be uploaded onto Commons. But there should be no objection to a local upload on American servers, which is where the English Wikipedia is hosted. So why have you brought this here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And incidentally the file was allowed on Commons for (presumably) obscure copyright reasons associated with Russia I'm not aware of. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since this was first published before 1923, the URAA cannot possible restore copyright. It is considered PD in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Why doesn't the file description page document the pre-1923 publication in the U.S? Shouldn't it?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the very early 20th century, there was often no documentation regarding the presentation of a painting to the public. When books are published, they usually note the date of publication, and it's easy to tell. For paintings and sculpture, U.S. law didn't even define what "publication" meant until 1978, and many galleries did not bother to have official, dated information about which paintings were displayed when. That would certainly be nice, but it's an unrealistic bar to meet. – Quadell (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The file has been allowed on Commons. No idea why, it was tagged for deletion but the decision was "Keep". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Info N.B. "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Response to info Agreed. Please present evidence of pre-1923 publication, and this discussion will be over.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, rather than spend the time on that, I think I'll resort to the Commons image if need be. Thanks anyway. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on detailed information on publication of art works that kindly provided on my talk page, my concerns have been resolved and I now support keeping this image.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  19:11, 6 December 2013 (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:Anton Kolig - Portrait of the Schaukal Family.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Anton Kolig - Portrait of the Schaukal Family.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Painter is Austrian, (1950+70 = 2020 ) So copyright may have been revived by URAA?? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * :The publication date is pre-1923 and thus PD in the USA (and tagged as such). I do know about revived URAA copyright, but that's not applicable (am I right?) Because Teresa Ries died in 1956, her work doesn't enter the public domain in the EU until 2027, so her images can't be uploaded onto Commons. But there should be no objection to a local upload on American servers, which is where the English Wikipedia is hosted. So why have you brought this here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since this was first published before 1923, the URAA cannot possible restore copyright. It is considered PD in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The English Wikipedia does not consider the copyright in the country of origin, just in the US (this is not Commons). As this was first published (put on display) in 1913/1914, this is easily public domain in the US. Upload should be kept local, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Why doesn't the file description page document the pre-1923 publication in the U.S? Shouldn't it?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  00:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. – Quadell (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Info "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence of pre-1923 publication?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NG only offers 1933 as earliest, but of course that doesn't mean it wasn't published before then. Almost certainly it was. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If your assertion of "almost certainly" is based on evidence rather than your own personal opinion, then I will gladly accept your evidence. Where is the evidence?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on detailed information on publication of art works that kindly provided on my talk page, my concerns have been resolved and I now support keeping this image.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  19:13, 6 December 2013 (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:Oskar Kokoschka - Portrait of Lotte Franzos.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Oskar Kokoschka - Portrait of Lotte Franzos.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Austrian artist : Died 1980, Austria is 70 pma, so this may have been revived by URAA. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * :The publication date is pre-1923 and thus PD in the USA (and tagged as such). I do know about revived URAA copyright, but that's not applicable (am I right?) Because Teresa Ries died in 1956, her work doesn't enter the public domain in the EU until 2027, so her images can't be uploaded onto Commons. But there should be no objection to a local upload on American servers, which is where the English Wikipedia is hosted. So why have you brought this here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since this was first published before 1923, the URAA cannot possible restore copyright. It is considered PD in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The English Wikipedia does not consider the copyright in the country of origin, just in the US (this is not Commons). As this was first published (put on display) in 1913/1914, this is easily public domain in the US. Upload should be kept local, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Why doesn't the file description page document the pre-1923 publication in the U.S? Shouldn't it?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  01:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. – Quadell (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Cullen328. I'm the user who uploaded these files. I shall reply hereto begin and copy as appropiate to the others at my leisure.
 * First of all I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and certainly to this. I did make an experimental run with uploading Josef Auchentaller's famous Seebad Grado poster and that seemed to go well (and can I ask you do to something for me? Will you please confirm, or not, whether you think that was a good and positive thing to do for the encyclopedia, because it took time and effort and I would like to know where you're coming from here - thank you).
 * Regarding the 'original publication' field in these uploads, that's simply a mistake on my part as Quadell says. I thought what was meant was proof of original publication (certainly that's what implied in the explanatory remarks in the Wizard) and so I gave the exhibition catalogue detailing the work's date. I really can't get my head around what constitutes 'publication' in copyright law. I've tried but I can't. That would seem to be for experts (are you an expert? You certainly appear to be one.Perhaps you could do our community a service by making clear what it involves in the Help files? That would be really helpful). Perhaps it's as you say, though I wonder whether it really can be so (can you cite some US case law for me please? That would also be helpful - thank you).
 * As for the details you request that's usually straightforward to supply, because of course auctioneers and galleries maintain detailed records of their acquisitions. In the case of this exceptionally famous and beautiful painting they are as follows "Berlin 1910, no 20; Karlsbad 1911, n. 6; Vienna 1911, no 43; Westheim 1917, p. 309; Westheim 1918 p.52; ... + 36 post-1923 citations until New York, Neue Galerie 2011, no. 55, p. 151." and in this case the source is the National Gallery's Immunity from Seizure declaration, but I should imagine that any catalogue raisonné would supply the details as well. But here's the rub Cullen328: Catalogue raisonnés are exceptionally expensive, not everyone has access to them. The only real candidate for dispute about publication here would be Elena Luksch-Makowsky, as most of her work never reached the sale-room,. But oddly enough Commons has allowed her (I uploaded three of these images to Commons not understanding the local siginificance of the pre-1923 rule: they were immediately tagged for deletion, but as I say the Luksch-Makowsky work was allowed. I don't know why).
 * Are you aware just how well known these works are? I grant Kolig's Schaukal Family is relatively obscure (though I did happen to know it) but all the rest are first rank works immmediately recognisable to anyone familiar with the period and almost certainly, I would say without actually researching it just yet, 'published' pre-1923 in the sense you describe i.e. as illustated in a book or magazine. Not for nothing did the National Gallery select them. I'm inclined to agree with Quadell about copyright paranoia.
 * I hope this demonstrates my good faith in replying. Of course let's discuss it. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep First published 1910 as mentioned above. I shall amend its details accordingly. N.B. "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coat of Many Colours (talk • contribs)
 * I readily acknowledge that this painting may have been graphically reproduced, and therefore published, before 1923. Please furnish evidence of that. I understand that historic catalogs are expensive. I don't think we waive the requirement for evidence because someone thinks that evidence is too expensive to obtain. I would accept evidence other than a link to a pre-1923 image. Perhaps a reliable source that mentions a pre-1923 representation in a catalog. Please furnish the evidence. Or is it your position that no evidence is required, but simply assertions without evidence? If so, please point me to the consensus agreement that establishes this exception to our strict copyright requirements. Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Berlin 1910 no 4 as mentioned above. That should be evidence enough. Of course I don't have any position here at all. I have great difficulty in understanding the basic copyright issues here and I'm trying to educate myself in them. I don't believe I can profitably add more. You do know, I take it, that this is one the most famous and iconic images of the last century. Of course it was "published" before 1923 (and in English). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We are both learning here. My understanding is that an "Immunity from Seizure" declaration has to do with provenance, chain of ownership, and that the painting wasn't war loot. And that has nothing to do with copyright and publication. Am I wrong? It seems to me that your argument boils down to "It's famous and iconic in 2013, so therefore it must have been published before 1923, but I don't have to provide evidence of that." That doesn't seem logical to me. Am I missing something?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read up on "Immunity of seizure" laws and how major museums describe these policies. These are agreements that allow for temporary international loans between museums. They have nothing at all to do with publication dates or copyright status.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The section is headed "Publication and Exhibition History". I doubt galleries make much of a distinction between publication and exhibitions. Let's hope someone can provide the details. Arts Council has this to say about immunity from seizure:

Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act 2007 provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects which are loaned from overseas to temporary public exhibitions in approved museums or galleries in the UK where conditions are met when the object enters the UK.

The conditions are:


 * the object is usually kept outside the UK
 * the object is not owned by a person who is resident in the UK
 * the import of the object does not contravene any law
 * the object is brought into the UK for the purpose of a temporary public exhibition at an approved museum or gallery
 * the museum or gallery has published information about the object where required to do so by Regulations.


 * I suppose it's good old Regulations that obliges them to provide Publication and Exhibition History. Can't beat them, Regulations, can you? Where indeed would be all withour clearly stated Regulation.


 * Thanks for your input here Jim. Really appreciated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on detailed information on publication of art works that kindly provided on my talk page, my concerns have been resolved and I now support keeping this image.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  19:34, 6 December 2013 (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:Albert Paris von Gütersloh - Portrait of a Woman.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Albert Paris von Gütersloh - Portrait of a Woman.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Austrian artist - Died 1973, Austria is 70 pma, so this may have had a copyright revived by URAA. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * :The publication date is pre-1923 and thus PD in the USA (and tagged as such). I do know about revived URAA copyright, but that's not applicable (am I right?) Because Teresa Ries died in 1956, her work doesn't enter the public domain in the EU until 2027, so her images can't be uploaded onto Commons. But there should be no objection to a local upload on American servers, which is where the English Wikipedia is hosted. So why have you brought this here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since this was first published before 1923, the URAA cannot possible restore copyright. It is considered PD in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The English Wikipedia does not consider the copyright in the country of origin, just in the US (this is not Commons). As this was first published (put on display) in 1913/1914, this is easily public domain in the US. Upload should be kept local, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Why doesn't the file description page document the pre-1923 publication in the U.S? Shouldn't it?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  01:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. – Quadell (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep First published Vienna 1867 no. 7. I shall amend its details accordingly. N.B. "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question, can you please explain how a painting completed in 1914 could have been published in Vienna in 1867? The artist was born in 1887. It is important to get these details correct. Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah apologies. That's what's in the source, just a typo and I was on auto-pilot when I transcribed it. Probably it was Vienna 1967 and there's no earlier record. Source says there's a full provenance in the Leopold Museum, but that won't be online. Nevertheless almost certainly it was indeed published before 1923.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on detailed information on publication of art works that kindly provided on my talk page, my concerns have been resolved and I now support keeping this image.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  19:36, 6 December 2013 (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:Carl Moll - Self Portrait in his Study.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Carl Moll - & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Austrian artist - Died 1945, Austria is 70pma so this may have a copyright revived by URAA Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The publication date is pre-1923 and thus PD in the USA (and tagged as such). I do know about revived URAA copyright, but that's not applicable (am I right?) oBecause Teresa Ries died in 1956, her work doesn't enter the public domain in the EU until 2027, so her images can't be uploaded onto Commons. But there should be no objection to a local upload on American servers, which is where the English Wikipedia is hosted. So why have you brought this here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since this was first published before 1923, the URAA cannot possible restore copyright. It is considered PD in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The English Wikipedia does not consider the copyright in the country of origin, just in the US (this is not Commons). As this was first published (put on display) in 1913/1914, this is easily public domain in the US. Upload should be kept local, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question The file description page says the original publication is 2013. Why?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  01:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Novels, by definition, are published in languages. Paintings, being nonverbal in the vast majority of cases, aren't. Copyright law that applies to cases of translations is by definition, inapplicable to paintings. Nice try, though.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  07:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Info "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain."
 * Simply provide evidence of publication before 1923, and this discussion will be over.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. But you did think publication was the U.S. was the test didn't you? I'm glad I've been able to assist you in your researches. Plus it has to be published in English if not before 1909. That should be useful. I think it's exceedingly unlikely I'll be able to find evidence of publication. Not without access to a specialised databases. Thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I did think that U.S. publication was required, but I did not claim expertise, and now concede that publication anywhere in the world before 1923 would suffice. I am learning here, as you are. So I apologize for my error, and simply ask for any evidence whatsoever of publication before 1923. Wikipedia places scrupulous compliance with copyright law as a very high priority and a policy matter. If I am continuing to misunderstand the copyright issues involved, I will immediately step aside and defer to experts. Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No come on, let's be accurate, read the small print. If it's published before 1909 then publication anywhere in the world in any language suffices. But after 1909 and before 1923, a decision by the US Supreme Court Twin Books v Disney suggest that publication in English is the test. However of course that was a book Bambi, a Life in the Woods. What the situation is for art work is a question. I'm sorry you're not an expert in copyright law. I was rather hoping you were. What very little I do know about it is that in practice it's determined by case law. Quaddell mentions that he's never seen a pre-1923 painting have its PD status overturned in the US. Can you cite a case? That's what it really amounts to. Why in fact Wikipedia had to take copyright reversion post-Berne seriously in the first place, because there were successful court cases. But for pre-1923 art works? Well I wonder, and ultimately that's what matters.
 * Jim, I hope you will agree that I've done my best to deal with your issues and concerns here. But I have nothing more to offer and I don't want to come back here. And I shan't.
 * Thank you once again for your input. It's been great. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we get the case-law for that? You might well be understimating the inventiveness of the US Supreme Court. Thanks.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on detailed information on publication of art works that kindly provided on my talk page, my concerns have been resolved and I now support keeping this image.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  19:37, 6 December 2013 (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:Josef Maria Auchentaller - Bunte Bände (Portrait of Maria).jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Josef Maria Auchentaller - Bunte Bände (Portrait of Maria).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Austrian artist - Died 1949 - Austria is 70pma so this may have had a copyright revived by URAA.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The publication date is pre-1923 and thus PD in the USA (and tagged as such). I do know about revived URAA copyright, but that's not applicable (am I right?) Because Teresa Ries died in 1956, her work doesn't enter the public domain in the EU until 2027, so her images can't be uploaded onto Commons. But there should be no objection to a local upload on American servers, which is where the English Wikipedia is hosted. So why have you brought this here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since this was first published before 1923, the URAA cannot possible restore copyright. It is considered PD in the U.S. – Quadell (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The English Wikipedia does not consider the copyright in the country of origin, just in the US (this is not Commons). As this was first published (put on display) in 1913/1914, this is easily public domain in the US. Upload should be kept local, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Under original publication, the file description page lists books published in 2012 and 2013. Why?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  01:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Info "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain."
 * Currently, the file description page says that it was first published in 2012. Please provide evidence that the painting was first published before 1923 and correct the file description page accordingly. Assertions without evidence are insufficient. Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned several times that was a mistake. At the time I though creation was publication and I was just offring evidence of publication. I'll edit it those files later. Thanks.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on detailed information on publication of art works that kindly provided on my talk page, my concerns have been resolved and I now support keeping this image.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  19:48, 6 December 2013 (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:Khrushchyov, Beria and Khanjian.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept  TLSuda  (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Khrushchyov, Beria and Khanjian.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Soviet era photo, but no data on specific photographer. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is from 1930. Sorry we don't know the photographer now! Maybe he was executed in 1937 as many others. Lkahd (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the photographer's name indicated in the original publication from the 1930s? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Stefan2. It is the journal's name as no photographer's name is mentioned. Please see : "Individual photographs were copyrighted for five years since their publication. Photographs were only copyrighted if they bore the name of the studio or the photographer, the address, and the year." Lkahd (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2013 (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:Ottoman Armenian Man.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ottoman Armenian Man.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Old, but insufficent data for exact confirmation of origins or pre 1923 date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (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:Francis Acland.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept --  TLSuda  (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Francis Acland.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Insufficient data given to confirm photographer died prior to 1926. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This image was created in the UK circa 1910 and as such any copyright that may have been claimed has expired. Therefore it is in the Public Domain and can be used on wikipedia.Graemp (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: If this image was taken about 1910, but not published until much later... and if the photographer is not anonymous (but is simply not known to us)... then it could still be copyrighted. This is very unlikely, but it is possible. This appears to be a newspaper scan. If you can determine for sure that this photo (or any other photo of the subject) was published before 1923, then that photo would clearly be in the public domain, at least in the U.S., and we could use it. If not, we may have to treat it as a non-free file. (Note that we still might be able to use it under our non-free content policy.) – Quadell (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is clearly PD-UK because of its age. Quadrell's hypothetical about the image not being published for more than 30 years after it was created is too unlikely to be taken seriously. This image is part of the large Ernest Fawbert Collection, numerous other examples of which have been on wikipedia and Commons for some time without these sort of queries being raised.Graemp (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly a newspaper scan. We need to know whether this newspaper was published before or after 1923. If it was published after 1922, we also need to know whether the photographer is named in the newspaper. Currently, this information is unavailable. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is inconceivable that this was taken from a publication dated 1926 or after as no publisher would choose to use a 15 year old headshot.Graemp (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give an exact source to that publication so it can be verified by others. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The newspaper refers to the results of the Morpeth and Tiverton by-elections which both took place on 21 June 1923. Moreover, it refers to the murder of Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet "a year ago", and indeed he was murdered on 22 June 1922.--The Theosophist (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you want more, the URL says at one point "1923-JUN23"--The Theosophist (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2014 (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:1906 George Gibbs.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:1906 George Gibbs.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Insufficent evidence presented that photographer died prior to 1926. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: 1926 date is irrelevant. PD-UK as author died before 1943.Graemp (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 *  Withdrawn File page was updated providing confirmatry evidence. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If it is a postcard from 1906, then it was definitely published in 1906, which was before 1923. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2013 (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:Kodomonokuni.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Kodomonokuni.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Article notes author did not die until the 1980's, so if this was a Japanese work I fail to see why it's PD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Published in 1922, so PD-US-1923-abroad applies. Please check publication date before nominating a file for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2013 (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:Blackstones in Stamford at St Peters Street.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Blackstones in Stamford at St Peters Street.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Attributed to Blackstones FC, but the UK has no concept of corporate copyrights, more data needed to clarify status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

UK copyright is If the author is unknown, 70 years so photograph is allowed under UK copyright law — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackstonesfcfan (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The UK does have corporate copyright, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the deletion nomination. PD-US-1923-abroad applies here. Is the photographer named on either side of the postcard? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2013 (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:RUC Badge123.png
<div class="boilerplate 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:RUC Badge123.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

Crown copyright at least. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I knew UK police insignia were NOT exempt.
 * 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:RUCflag123.gif
<div class="boilerplate 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:RUCflag123.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * As far as I was aware official British symbols and insigna were not copyright exempt. Crown copyright at the very least? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (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:Lone Star Deitz.png
<div class="boilerplate 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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Lone Star Deitz.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Not enough data to confirm origin or date of image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2013 (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:William Bankier.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:William Bankier.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Attributed to E.T Penrose, but no death date given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Date of death of author unknown but as image was published in 1906 and as a reasonable search has been made for the authors details without success image is PD in the UK. Jack1956 (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD-US-1923-abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you specify where it was published before 1923, so that this information can be verified by other people? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Published in Southport in the UK Jack1956 (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2013 (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:Frank Woollaston RAMC.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Deleted - family photo, ca.1916, copyright will expire 2037   Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Frank Woollaston RAMC.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unknown author, so date of death determination not possible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unknown author therefore PD in the UK under the 70 year rule as image taken in 1918 at the latest. Jack1956 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it a service (ie Govt) photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it is from an anon family member. Jack1956 (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The source link doesn't work (I have to register for some service). USA copyright status unknown. There is no evidence that PD-US-1923-abroad applies as there is no evidence that it was published before 1923. If it was taken by an anonymous family member, then it is presumably a family photo, and family photos are normally unpublished. Unpublished anonymous photos are copyrighted in the United States for 120 years from creation, see PD-US-unpublished. This is less than 120 years old. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2013 (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:Saldo Sculptors Dream.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Saldo Sculptors Dream.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Whilst dated, there is no further information about the author. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From a theatrical poster from 1906 by unknown author making it PD in the UK and free as a poster image anyway. Jack1956 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD-US-1923-abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously published before 1923, so free in USA. If the name of the author isn't indicated on the poster, it seems reasonable to assume that the author is unknown. However, we would need access to the entire poster in order to check whether the author is credited there. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2013 (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:Monte Saldo 1903.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Monte Saldo 1903.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Whilst dated, there is no further information on the poster creator or origin. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From a publicity image created in 1903 by unknown author therefore PD in the UK. Jack1956 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD-US-1923-abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We are lacking evidence that the author is unknown, so we can't claim that. It is obviously from a publication, and if the author was credited in that publication, then he is not unknown. To find out, it would be necessary to check that publication. Thus: no evidence that this is free in the United Kingdom.
 * This is obviously from a publication. The image was created in 1903, so it may be conceivable to assume that it was published before 1923, in which it is free in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2013 (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:Mary Angela Dickens child.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 21:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Mary Angela Dickens child.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Attributed to Mason & Co., But UK doesn't have corporate copyrights. Further information determined to confirm status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Original photograph taken in 1866. This version published in 1897 i.e. before 1923 making it PD in UK and USA. Jack1956 (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The UK does have corporate copyright. See discussion elsewhere. Jack1956 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD-US-1923-abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The UK does have corporate copyright, but I don't know why this is mentioned in the discussion as it doesn't affect the copyright status of the image in any way.
 * For the UK part, check whether the illustrator is credited in the indicated publication. If the illustrator isn't credited, then it is conceivable to assume that the illustrator is anonymous.
 * This image is free in the United States as it was published before 1923. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2013 (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:Harold and Violet Copping.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept PD-US-unpublished. --  TLSuda  (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Harold and Violet Copping.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unknown author, Further information needed for PD-UK (or evidence none exist for PD-UK-unknown) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverse states only 'Violet and Harold on their engagement' (c.1887). Author unknown making it PD in the UK under 70 year rule regarding unknown author. Jack1956 (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The author is only unknown "if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry" (see Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988). It is not clear what enquiry you have made or whether it is sufficient. The law furthermore states that "if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown". Therefore, it would seem to be sufficient if it was possible to ascertain his idenity by "reasonable inquiry" at any time in the past, even if it isn't possible to do so for the moment.
 * Is this a published or an unpublished photograph? If it is a published photograph, then it might be free in the United States per PD-US-1923-abroad. If it wasn't published before 2003, it may be in the public domain per PD-US-unpublished. The word "anonymous" in that template means something else than the word "unknown" in the British law (see United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 3/Sections 302 and 303). It seems that it is easier to claim that an author is anonymous under the US definition than under the British one as the US definition seems to require informing the United States Copyright Office of the identity of the author. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. We should simply change the license to PD-US-unpublished. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (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:Harold Copping 1913.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept PD-US-1923-abroad. --  TLSuda  (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Harold Copping 1913.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No author, further information needed to support PD-UK claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unknown photographer but dated 1913 on the reverse making it PD in the UK as photograph taken by unknown author. Jack1956 (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any other markings on the reverse of the image? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply says 'Harold Copping, London, 1913'. Jack1956 (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would assume that this check of the obverse is "reasonable inquiry" within the meaning of the British copyright act, unless more information has been revealed at some other point in history. If more information has been revealed at some other point, I would like to see that information before disqualifying this photograph for PD-UK-unknown. Are you claiming that this was published in 1913? If so, then it satisfies PD-US-1923-abroad in any case. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it's a publicity shot that was used in theatre programmes, it should get the PD-US-1923-abroad tag. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2014 (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:Mary Angela Dickens 1896.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 21:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Mary Angela Dickens 1896.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

Further information needed to support PD-UK claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Attributed to a studio, but UK doesn't have Corporate copyrights.
 * Published in The Sketch in 1896 making it PD in the UK and USA as before 1923! I have a copy of the page if anyone wants to see it. Jack1956 (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Where was the publication first published? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In London, but I believe it was sold all around the world. Jack1956 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the photographer named in that publication? If not, PD-UK-unknown seems very likely, and in that case I would like to see evidence of the contrary if someone claims that the author isn't unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD-US-1923-abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, PD-US-1923-abroad applies regardless of the copyright status in the UK. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2013 (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:Mary Angela Dickens.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 21:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Mary Angela Dickens.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unknown authorship, Further information needed to support PD claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unknown photographer and original image was used to accompany an article about Dickens in Strand Magazine in 1899. Jack1956 (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since it was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD-US-1923-abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep PD-US-1923-abroad clearly applies. I assume that you wouldn't claim that the photographer is unknown if he was credited in the cited magazine, so PD-UK-unknown also sounds reasonable. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2013 (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:Dandy Dick Whittington cast.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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 ⚡ 23:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Dandy Dick Whittington cast.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Attributed to Alfred Elis, but no further information given to support PD-UK claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See here for attribution and here  to show he died in 1930 so PD in the UK. Jack1956 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest updating the file page with the new data.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2013 (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:May-Yohe-Dandy-Dick.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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 ⚡ 07:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * File:May-Yohe-Dandy-Dick.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Attaributed to Alfred Ellis, but no further information given to confirm status or PD-UK claim (NPG image), Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See here for attribution and here  to show he died in 1930 so PD in the UK. Jack1956 (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn per Jack1956 09:23, 5 December 2013 (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:Francis Picabia, The Dance at the Spring, 1912, oil on canvas, Philadelphia Museum of Art.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Francis Picabia, The Dance at the Spring, 1912, oil on canvas, Philadelphia Museum of Art.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Francis Picabia died in 1953 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Published on a 1913 postcard. Armory Show postcard with reproduction of Francis Picabia's painting The dance at the spring, 1913. Walt Kuhn, Kuhn family papers, and Armory Show records, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. This painting was published in the United States prior to 1923. This image can have no independent copyright as it is simply a faithful reproduction of an old, public domain, two-dimensional work of art. Keep. Coldcreation (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear pre-1923 publication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2013 (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:Harry-Freeman-sheetmusic.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Harry-Freeman-sheetmusic.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Attributed to H G Banks but no further data given to confirm status. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Image was published in 1898 making it PD in UK and USA. Jack1956 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See NPG website here suggesting Harry G Banks died in about 1904. Jack1956 (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Active 1880-1904" only means that he retired in 1904. However, considering that he was already active in 1880, it seems unreasonable that he would still be alive by 1943. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Noted. Withdrawn For commons if US status confirmed.
 * This was clearly published in 1898, so what are you missing? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2013 (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:Harry-freeman-c1890.jpg
<div class="boilerplate 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: Kept.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Harry-freeman-c1890.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Unknown photographer, and insufficient data to support PD UK claim. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unknown photographer and Freeman died in 1922 so image taken before that date so PD UK applies. Jack1956 (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since this publicity photo was published before 1923, it is eligible for the PD-US-1923-abroad license. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An inscription like this would presumably only appear on published copies, so assuming that it was published sounds very reasonable. It also seems reasonable to assume that it was published before 1923, so therefore PD-US-1923-abroad presumably applies. It is not clear what enquiry has been made or whether everything "reasonable" (within the meaning of the CDPA) has been done, so I am unwilling to accept PD-UK-unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2013 (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.