Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31

File:Buchenwald-Dora.JPG

File:Buchenwald-Dora.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

No FOP in France and no FOP for statues in the US. MGA73 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of many pictures in the article on Père Lachaise Cemetery. It is a picture I took myself and have realeased it into the public domain. The picture will be removed as it seems to violate FOP in France. Not only is this not correct, but it should apply to all the other pictures in the article. So as a common courtesy, do not remove just this single image, remove them all. 77.167.212.162 (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:DiodotusII.jpg

File:DiodotusII.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

“

usage allowed for non-commercial purposes according to page [1]

”

Non-commercial is unfortunately not enough. Since the coin still exists, someone could take a free photo of it. Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sophytes.jpg

File:Sophytes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

“

usage allowed for non-commercial purposes according to page [2]

”

Non-commercial is unfortunately not enough. Since the coin still exists, someone could take a free photo of it. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says that this is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but there is no information on when it was published. It says that it is "scanned from an original carte de visite photo", implying that it was published at some point, although not necessarily before 1923. It also says that it is a "historically significant fair-use image", contradicting the public domain claim. Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fairuse the subject is dead for over 60 years, so no new free image can be created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found two published photos, but I can't tell whether the copyright was renewed:

Lewiston Evening Journal 4 March 1932, page 15

The Lewiston Daily Sun 15 January 1943, page 8 --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say. Given she was 50 in 1900, and she was pretty famous by 1886, I would guess that it's probably pre-1900, 190x at the latest given the poor quality of the photographic reproduction. With respect to aging, look at the 1932 newpaper picture for example. As such, while it's going to be pretty much impossible to prove, I would have though that we'd be a pretty good shot at life+70 for the photographer, irrespective of the publication status pre or post 1923. I don't suppose there is a date or maker's mark on the postcard ? Megapixie (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amy Sherwin.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 Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amy Sherwin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It says that this is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but the uploader hasn't provided any evidence of any publication. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fairuse the subject is dead for over 60 years, so no new free image can be created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are other images of her which are in the public domain. See Commons:Category:Amy Sherwin. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this is a better copy of an image already in Wikimedia Commons that is public domain. Please try an do some research to save images before trying so hard to delete them. I uploaded the image to the Commons already so I am going to add a deletion tag to the version here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Paul Thayer Iaccaci.jpg

File:Paul Thayer Iaccaci.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It says that this is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but there is no evidence that it was published before 1923, let alone taken before 1923. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fairuse the subject is dead for over 30 years, so no new free image can be created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the person on the photo? The file name is "Paul Thayer Iaccaci" and the image is used in the article about him. However, the fair use rationale states that it is a photo of August Thayer Iaccaci, which redirects to August Thayer Jaccaci who is obviously a different person. The source URL suggests that this is Paul and not August. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Our discription page has been fixed according to the data from the source website ; since the source website says this is Paul, the description now says it is Paul. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harold Albert Kullberg.jpg

File:Harold Albert Kullberg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It says that this is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but there is no evidence that it was published before 1923, let alone taken before 1923. Possibly {{PD-USGov}}. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fairuse the subject is dead for 90 years, so no new free image can be created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elliott White Springs 1918.png

File:Elliott White Springs 1918.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

It says that the photo is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but the uploader has not provided any information that the photo has been published before the 21st century. Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fairuse the subject is dead for over 50 years, so no new free image can be created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look for copyright renewals? I found a few photos of him which might qualify for {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but it is always a bit tricky to know whether that tag can be used.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=SFOYbPikdlgC&dat=19370704&printsec=frontpage&hl=en page 3 (1937)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=uHQrz-U2knEC&dat=19431202&printsec=frontpage&hl=en page 2 (1943)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0oeUc68sgesC&dat=19591016&printsec=frontpage&hl=en page 1 (1959)

Page numbers according to Google's menu bar. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colonel William Thaw.jpg

File:Colonel William Thaw.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It says that the photo is in the public domain because it was published before 1923, but the uploader has not provided any information that the photo has been published before the 21st century. Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to fairuse the subject is dead for 80 years, so no new free image can be created. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Free images exist. See Commons:Category:William Thaw II. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michton Chocolate Logo.jpg

File:Michton Chocolate Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is clearly a logo, and although the uploaders name is suggestive of a link, the file description page doesn't make it clear. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milos Trifunovic left.jpg

File:Milos Trifunovic left.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This photo is not a law, not a decree, nor regulation and not an official material, therefore the exemption listed may not apply. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian.jpg

File:Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Although claimed as 'public' ,little evidence is presented for this. Appreciated that this is historical material though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also sourced to ru:Файл:Russ copy.jpg which uses {{PD-RU-exempt}}. I don't know whether this is correct as I can't read the text. Maybe someone who knows Russian can help. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is public, and should not be deleted. It is a basic historical document long ago released to the public, and I don't think the Nazis are going to sue for copyright violation anyway... cwmacdougall 21:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]