Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 14

June 14

File:Oil portrait of Alexander Buchan, before 1769.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: unclear copyright status, defaulting to status quo (non-free) -Fastily 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file may actually be free. From what the uploader provided, this painting is likely 18th century, so {{PD-old-assumed}} would apply even though the author is unknown. Wikiacc (¶) 03:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image was earlier discussed here, where Kusma wrote: "as it was first published in 1979, it may be protected by copyright". Note also that the 1979 publication was in the United Kingdom, not the United States. So I doubt this work was eligible for restoration under the URAA, but this is worth discussing. Wikiacc (¶) 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons would probably accept this image based on sloppy interpretation of rules, but I see no evidence that it is PD. From c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom, it seems to be in copyright in the UK until 2029 or 2049, and it was not PD in 1996. —Kusma (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless we can establish either that the painting was in fact published before 1979, or the identity of the artist, under the UK's bizarre copyright rules it remains in copyright until 2049 here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other alternative would be that it was never published at all; This is because publication requires the consent of the copyright holder. So it is unlikely that it having been made available to the public in 1979 counts as publication. This would render it {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Felix QW (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning only applies to the US, of course, but that is good enough for a local file. Felix QW (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting was (and I think still is) owned by relatives of Alexander Buchan, who appear to have been involved in the 1979 publication and are also the most likely potential copyright holders. —Kusma (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Back in My Arms Again.ogg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 11:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't contextually signify the song. Doesn't justify reason that omitting this file would detriment understanding of the whole song. George Ho (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.