Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 19



File:Libyan-Man-1870.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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Libyan-Man-1870.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The source on Flickr shows the photo was taken in 1936, not 1870 as claimed. The source on Flickr shows a Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) license, which is not a compatible license with the file being hosted on this wiki. Dianna (talk) 02:05, 19 January 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:EdReganComptroller.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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  10:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I find the license claim a bit hard to believe. Eeekster (talk) 04:15, 19 January 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:MikeMadigan.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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  10:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * This is not the work of the uploader. Eeekster (talk) 04:23, 19 January 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:Ashfaq Ahmad in his Youth.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Ashfaq Ahmad in his Youth.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It says that the subject of the photo is the same person as the photographer, which is unlikely. It also says that this person has released the image to the public domain, but there is no evidence that this statement is correct. If it was published more than 50 years ago, then it is in the public domain in Pakistan. However, it is only in the public domain in the United States if the publication was before 1946, per WP:Non-U.S. copyrights. Looking at the age of the man (cf. Ashfaq Ahmad), it is not entirely unlikely that the photo might have been taken after 1945, and there is no information on whether the photo has been published somewhere or not. Stefan2 (talk) 12:04, 19 January 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:Cheetahfoot.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Claimed as Indian publication, but author listed is British, and didn't die until 1947, If UK work, in copyright until 2017 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 19 January 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:Erichsen p.71 v2.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Erichsen p.71 v2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Casper Erichsen isn't dead, the file has been edited to include captioning FOARP (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the license is for publications pre-1923, regardless of whether the person is dead or not; and Casper Erichsen isn't listed as author either, only the source of the map that was scan, for which the map itself is supposedly sourced to 1904, prior to Casper Erichsen's birth -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the license is for publications pre-1923, then there needs to be evidence that the map was published prior to 1923 - currently the only publication date available is 2005 in Erichsen's book.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PD-1923 indeed means that it was published before 1923. If it is very old and not published before 2003, then PD-US-unpublished might apply, but there is not enough information available to verify this. If this was made in 1904 and not published until 2005, then it is only in the public domain if the person who drew the map died before 1943. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as important, the captioning that was added to the map was clearly not in the original (i.e., it's in English and is in purple) and is therefore very likely not to have been published before 1923. If the author of the captioning was Casper Erichsen (and he is the only author listed - although quite possibly the captioning was added by the uploader when it was edited using photoshop as noted in the file info) then its copyright belongs to him, and he ain't dead, so it isn't in the public domain. FOARP (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the numbers 1 to 6 and the captions "Extermination camp", "Lighthouse" et cetera, then I don't think that this is an issue. Those things are presumably below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IDK - I learned IP law in the UK where we have a very low threshold for originality (theoretically a line can be an original work), but I understand it's US law we look at here. Anyways, the publication date isn't pre-1923, so, should the licence be changed, and to what? FOARP (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The map is a problem. Either you need to show that it was published somewhere else before 1923, or you need to show that the publication from 2005 was the first publication containing the map and that the map designer died before 1943. If you can't show either, then I'm afraid that the map needs to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 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:Nikshahrulazim5.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Nikshahrulazim5.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Clearly invalid license tag and image is not available at the URL claimed as the source. Eeekster (talk) 19:54, 19 January 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:Battle of Grunwald.jpg

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Battle of Grunwald.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There's no evidence to support the assertion that the artwork is from the 15th century; it looks like 20th-century artwork to me. It was used as cover art for a set of models, as can be seen here. The artwork is almost certainly still under copyright. Dianna (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there appears to be a signature on the painting... "G Roscoe" ? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not 15th century or anything like it. Probably recent artwork for the models. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete some google-fu leads to Giuseppe Rava ("G. Rava") as likely author, a professional illustrator born in 1963 working for the toy company linked above. His bio can be seen under []. GermanJoe (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm pretty sure this is an illustration from some modern day role playing game or something like that. I can't remember which one but I've encountered it before. It is most certainly NOT from the 15th century. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 22 January 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.