Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 21



File:John Adam Hardman photo.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 ⚡  04:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * File:John Adam Hardman photo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * I found this image in this gallery and several other locations on the internet so question whether the uploader took this picture as claimed. Dianna (talk) 00:37, 21 March 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:Scorpio 1971 Tehran.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 without prejudice to new evidence that this image was *published* in 1971. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Scorpio 1971 Tehran.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Image came from http://www.youtube.com/user/Rushgroupfilm/videos. I don't think the PD-Iran licensing template applies here. I'm just not sure, so I am bringing it here for wider input. Dianna (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, No the image comes from BBC Persian here: and if there was a copyright violation BBC would not use that image. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All photos published more than 30 years ago are in the public domain. The photo is in the public domain in the United States if it was taken by an Iranian citizen residing in Iran and first published in Iran. We have no evidence of either. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The BBC and other news outlets often use copyright images, and pay the copyright holder for the right to do so. That does not make the copyright cease to exist. - Dianna (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think BBC Persian also relies to PD-Iran for the old Iranian pictures, many of these old pictures in their website. the pictures also used on the Facebook of BBC Persian, Its been published in magazines in Iran before 1979 revolution so Its almost imposible to find them now. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your upload is squished, the same as the one on the BBC website, and I realise you did upload it from there. The reason I said the image "came from YouTube" is because that's the only version I found that is not squished and distorted. It often helps us determine the copyright status of an image if we can find the earliest and/or biggest copy on the web. -- Dianna (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Likely taken in Iran because of subject. No need to be Iranian citizen. It is PD in U.S. since PD in Iran on 1996. It is PD in U.S. because we have no copyright relations with Iran and it is PD in Iran because 30 years have passed. Fulfills both obligations. See: Non-U.S._copyrightsRamaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to verify that 30 years have passed since the photo was first published, not just 30 years since the photo was taken. When was this photo first published? Is it a private photo which remained unpublished for a long time, or was it published directly after it was taken? If it was first published by the BBC in 2013, then it enters the public domain in Iran in 2044 (30 years after publication), and if it was first published by the BBC, then it is also protected by copyright in the United States as it was first published in the United Kingdom, with which the United States has copyright relations. Per Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 14, Wikipedia requires this to be in the public domain in Iran in order to treat it as free, if the photo was first published in Iran. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment PD-URAA can't be used for Iranian works because there hasn't been any date of restoration yet, and the year 1996 doesn't have anything to do with the copyright status of Iranian works in the United States. If it was first published in Iran, then it is in the public domain in the United States simply because there is no international treaty saying that Iranian works should be protected by copyright in the United States. However, there was an RfC some time ago which concluded that Wikipedia also wants Iranian works to be in the public domain in Iran (unless published before 1923, I presume). --Stefan2 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 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 Sick 1910.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, with corrections to sourcing and templating. Dianna (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Max Sick 1910.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It says that this is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before 1923. However, the uploader hasn't provided any evidence that it was published before 1992. If the image was first published in 1992, then it is protected by copyright in the United States until the end of 2047 at least. Stefan2 (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that these were promotional photos taken at Monte Saldo's home in Finchley in 1910, just after Sick had arrived inn the UK. Certainly, these images are of a young man of no more than 30 years of age, placing them no later than 1912. Photographer remains unknown. Jack1956 (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now identified the publication as being the January 29 1910 edition of Health & Strength magazine. See []. Photographer not named. Jack1956 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then it should be fine. This image has too low quality: I can't read the date. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this image clearer? Jack1956 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. That one shows that the photo is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 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:Maxick 1910.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. Dianna (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Maxick 1910.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It says that this is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before 1923, but it doesn't say when or where it was published, so there is no way to verify the claim.

It says that this is in the public domain in the United Kingdom because it is anonymous, but the linked website doesn't tell where the image comes from. For example, the photo might have been published somewhere, and the photographer's name might have been indicated in that publication. Stefan2 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lots of 'mights' in the above comment. My understanding is that these were promotional photos taken at Monte Saldo's home in Finchley in 1910, just after Sick had arrived in the UK. Certainly, these images are of a young man of no more than 30 years of age, placing them no later than 1912. Photographer remains unknown. Jack1956 (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are claiming that the photo is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, then you need to provide evidence that it was published before 1923. A lot of photos remain unpublished for a long time. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found the original image in the British Library's copy of Maxick's 1910 book Muscle Control published by Athletic Publications Ltd of London. This does not show all the images but this one was obviously taken at the same time as my colourized image (same costume and background). If its a problem I'll change it for this image. Jack1956 (talk) 09:23, 22 March 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:Eddy Duchin circa 1935.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, with the addition of a fair use rationale. Dianna (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Eddy Duchin circa 1935.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It says that this is in the public domain because the photo was published more than 12 years before it was taken. You can obviously not publish a photo before taking the photo. Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This photo was a publicity photo I was told by a reliable source was first published around 1935 with no expressed or written copyright attached to it. It appears you know or believe it was first published in 1947, can you expand on that? I can find no known author for the photo nor any claimed copyright and it appears to be widely used in the public domain in multiple places and I can find no renewal claim of any previous copyright(which I could not find to begin with). I believe this photo to be clearly in the public domain unless it can be proven otherwise.Kmanblue (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The template says that it is in the public domain because it was published 12 years before it was taken (and not 12 yours after it was taken as you wrote above). How do I verify that it was published without a copyright notice around 1935? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now. That's weird, because I did not purposely put the PD-US license part on there, but rather meant for it to have the PD-Pre1978 license on it and have now corrected that. --Kmanblue (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the license for this photo. It's an unedited, unaltered original photo published around 1935 and as you can see there's no copyright claim of any kind on the photo itself. It's a widely distributed publicity photo from around 1935 and has been and is currently being used in many different places in the public domain and nobody has ever tried to claim a copyright of any kind at any time on the photo that I can find. I believe all of this proves without doubt that it's within the public domain within the United States.--Kmanblue (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is still no way to verify that the photo was published around 1935. See Ipse dixit. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The exact date of publication is not relevant as if it was published between 1923(it's clearly taken after 1923 as Eddy would have been only 14 and this photo is not of a 14 year old) and 1978(27 years after Eddy's death) it's still covered by the PD-Pre1978 license. This was a publicity photo put out to publicize the artist (i.e. while they were alive and performing which for Eddy means between 1930 and 1951), not something found in someone's archive and published decades after their death(the only way it could have been published post-1978), plus there's no claimed copyright of any kind on the photo itself which makes that point moot as a photo with no copyright no matter when it was published(or taken) still has no copyright. --Kmanblue (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it isn't possible to verify that the image has been published at all before it was uploaded to Find a Grave in 2009. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no copyright of any kind on the photo itself which means it has no copyright so a point about where it was first published should be moot. But even if findagrave was the first place it was ever published (which it clearly is not), there's absolutely NO copyright claimed by the uploader nor findagrave either. In fact findagrave specifically states they claim no copyrights on uploaded images. They do however review images to make sure they don't violate any copyright laws and apparently they're in agreement that there's no copyright on the photo either. --Kmanblue (talk) 21:32, 22 March 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:Oyan cultural party.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 G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  19:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Oyan cultural party.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of a photo of unknown origin. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 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:Rupp TT 500 Picture and Specs.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. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Rupp TT 500 Picture and Specs.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Invalid PD reason. Can't tell if this is the whole advertisement or not. As it was presumably published in the United States, it would need a copyright notice somewhere. Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No this is not the whole advertisement. It was published in the United States.  Would the entire brochure need to be posted showing the copyright in order to post this photo?  What would be the proper way to handle advertisement material from a now bankrupt company? Steelpulse90 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to show that it doesn't contain a copyright notice. If it contains a copyright notice, then the advertisement is copyrighted. In that case, you need to obtain permission from the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it does not contain a copyright notice then since it was before 1978, you can use PD-Pre1978  Ron h jones  (Talk) 20:38, 5 April 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.