Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 9



File:Bert_Kinner.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 ⚡  15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * File comes from http://www.earlyaviators.com/ekinner.htm, only copyright notice is on main page (all rights reserved), and image is said to be from 1927, which is after the 1923 PD (also, for what it's worth, there are better free photos available, such as the one currently in use in Kinner's article) czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a great image to begin with, and if better examples are available, go with them. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:42, 9 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:Mural LA Central Library.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Given the information by Mangoe and Stefan2, I no longer believe this file to be a copyright violation. – Quadell (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Mural LA Central Library.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is a photo of a mural on an interior wall in a Los Angeles library. The photo is freely licensed, but I don't know if the mural is PD or not. – Quadell (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Freedom of Panorama does not cover murals on interior walls in the U.S. The library's expansion, which added the mural, occurred from 1988 through 1993, according to the Los Angeles Public Library article. But the artist, Dean Cornwell, died in 1960. Some of his paintings are old enough to be PD, but others are not, and I just don't know for this one. (Also note that the image exists on Commons as well, so if it's determined to be unfree it should be deleted there.) – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing this when I was a kid in the 1950s. Of course, my memory can be faulty, so please find a WP:RS for the provenance and date of this artwork. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right. The article indicates, but doesn't state, that the mural was introduced in the 80s/90s. It would make more sense if Cornwell made the mural specifically for the library during his life. But that still doesn't resolve the copyright status. – Quadell (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They were completed in 1932/33; see here. I have corrected the article by moving the text on the mural into the proper section. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's very useful information. – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep If it is from the 1930s, then it needs both a copyright notice and a renewal after 28 years. Murals are not the kind of things which typically are renewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I have a very good (layman's) understanding of U.S. copyright in history, I've never been clear on this point: before the Copyright Act of 1976, when was a painting "published"? (After 1976, copyright begins when a work is "fixed", so post-1976 paintings are all copyrighted for a term depending on the artist's life. But the previous Copyright Act of 1909 defines the copyright scope as beginning when the work is "published", without clearly defining the term.) If the painting was "published" before 1976 without a clear notice of copyright affixed, (or if it was "published" with a &copy; affixed but was not registered or not renewed), then it's in the public domain, no question. But if it was not "published" until after 1976, it would still be held under copyright until 2030.
 * It's possible that merely exhibiting the work in a public library, without overt restrictions on photography, would have legally counted as "publication". (If so, then the work was "published" without copyright and is PD.) But I'm not sure of that.
 * I find it very likely that library brochures before 1976 would have included photos of the work, thereby making copies available to the public and resulting in a clear official "publication". In fact, both Mangoe's link and this other link indicate separate library brochures that at least described the painting back in the 1920s. So if I'm right, then the work could only be copyrighted if the first brochure to reproduce the work (i.e. the painting's first publication) was made with a copyright notice affixed, and was registered with the U.S. copyright office, and was officially renewed in the correct year. A brief search through Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database, Rutgers' renewal list), the Project Gutenberg list, and UPenn's Catalog showed that the LAPL's 1933 "The Light Of Learning" brochure was not renewed. Other LAPL brochures seem to not have been registered or renewed. But I can't be 100% sure, since I don't know the name or year of the work that first made copies of the painting available to the public. – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the Copyright Act of 1976 applies since 1 January 1978, so where you write "post-1976" and "before 1976", this should be "post-1977" and "before 1978", respectively.
 * The law doesn't define what "publication" is, so this was left to the courts. Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US contains some examples on how courts have decided. Generally speaking, it seems that it was "publication" if anyone was able to see the work and if no efforts were done to prevent photography. For example, anyone can see a statue in a park, and anyone can take photos in a park. On the other hand, certain exhibitions at museums and art galleries might be closed for the general public, and there are some museums which prohibit photography. If you wish to use a photo of a painting exhibited at a museum, then you need to know whether the museum allowed photography when the painting was exhibited (usually impossible to find out decades after the exhibition). The Copyright Act of 1976 contains a definition of "publication", so if the exhibition was made in 1978 or later, then you should instead use that definition, giving vastly different results. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - the file has been transferred to Wikimedia Commons (presumably because noone found a problem) so would it make any difference if the Wikipedia file was deleted anyway?! Sionk (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is deleted as a copyright violation here, I will nominate it for deletion on Commons as well. If it is found to be in the public domain, I'll put all useful info on the Commons version and delete the local copy. – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 10 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:Jagadguruji.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 ⚡  15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Looks like a photograph copied from a book. I don't believe the uploader's claim that "I sunil created this work entirely by myself." Qwertyus (talk) 14:49, 9 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:Abdrkhan.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 ⚡  15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * The source contains no information about the age or the author of the image, so it can't be assumed that the author has been dead for 100 years. ALH (talk) 17:01, 9 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:James_Herbert_Knight_1921.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 ⚡  15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:James Herbert Knight 1921.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * can't verify date of image from the source czar   &middot;   &middot;  20:21, 9 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:This is a photo of me images.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 ⚡  15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:This is a photo of me images.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Says "because it is on google images which is free to use if the photo is uploaded" which is not true. Eeekster (talk) 23:55, 9 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.