Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14[edit]

File:Bashar Jaafari.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bashar Jaafari.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bashar Jaafari.jpg Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:40, 14 June 2014 (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.

Two files[edit]

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: Deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Nthep (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sree T K Radhakrishnan accompanied by Sree Chowdiah and Palghat Mani Ayyar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Flute concert.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Two copies of the same file but with different source information. Also uploaded as c:File:Sree T K Radhakrishnan accompanied by Sree Chowdiah and Palghat Mani Ayyar.jpg but deleted on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2014 (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:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale at commons. This is not a flat 2D object being photographed in a manner similar to a scan. Given the lighting and similar effects, this is not the sort of object which can be said not to pass the threshold of originality. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:21, 15 June 2014 (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:WaikatoTimesSignHamilton.JPG[edit]

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; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:WaikatoTimesSignHamilton.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Derivative work of non-free sign. Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2014 (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:BankofLansing2.jpg[edit]

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. It would appear that {{PD-US-no notice}} applies to the statue. Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:BankofLansing2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This is a sculptural work on a US building, sculpture or architecture rules applicable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" It is my understanding that the laws for architecture apply. I also know of no case from the 1039s where a detail has been copyrighted, and if it had of been it wold not have been renewed. Carptrash (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the case Leicester v. Warner Brothers], a sculpture which was part of a building was found to be covered by {{FoP-US}}. Note that this case depends on s:Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, which defines {{FoP-US}} and makes buildings copyrighted. This act only applies to buildings which were completed on or after 1 December 1990. This file contains a work by Ulysses Ricci, who died 30 years before 1990, so it is unlikely that this work wasn't completed until after 1 December 1990. The defence in Leicester v. Warner Brothers therefore doesn't seem to work here. However, the work would have to be marked "© Ulysses Ricci" (the year is optional for artistic works), and Ulysses Ricci or his heir would have to submit a copyright renewal after 28 years. Did this happen? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The building dates from 1931 and there is no © on neither the stone carving nor the bronze doors. it is very rare to find either a sculptor's or a carver's name on architectural work. I arrived to interview Ulysses Ricci daughter and heir 15 years ago to learn that she had just passed away and I could discover no further heirs. Carptrash (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2014 (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:Oneshot.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work of sculpture by unidentifed sculptor, No FoP for 'recent' US works. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2014 (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.