Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 5

< November 4	November 6 >

November 5

File:Ron.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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overwritten file: five on one.

File uploaded by Zoomwaffles (talk · contribs) and Corvus cornix (talk · contribs): Sourced and licensed. Keep those two file revisions and revert the file information page to Special:PermanentLink/92542572 which refers to this file and add the picture to the page Ron Stonitsch.
File uploaded by Kent12 (talk · contribs): No source and no licence.
File uploaded by Braxtonmandy (talk · contribs), Luna Santin (talk · contribs) and Escape Orbit (talk · contribs): Although 72.139.29.0 (talk · contribs) later edited the text on the file information page to mention the depicted person, the uploader never edited the file information page and so neither provided a source nor a licence. Thus delete as unsourced and unlicensed.
File uploaded by Edgarnick (talk · contribs): Claimed to be "self-made" in the upload log summary, but the user didn't edit the file information page and didn't provide any licence. Delete as unlicensed.
File uploaded by Legolover95 (talk · contribs): The uploader inserted the template {{fair-use}} on the file information page, so it should be safe to assume that the file is unfree. Delete. Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2015 (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:MUshakovA.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MUshakovA.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2015 (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:Ableconf2009.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ableconf2009.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Image includes the OpenBSD logo, which is not available under a free license (see File:OpenBSD Logo - Cartoon Puffy with textual logo below.svg). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:40, 5 November 2015 (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:Alexandermemorial.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Missing information about the source and licensing status of the bust. Private Apartments of the Winter Palace reveals that Alexander II died on this spot in 1881, so the bust was probably placed there in 1881 or later, but the exact date is unknown. If the bust is from the 20th or 21st century, it might still be copyrighted. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to look at the information I uploaded with the photograph, it says quite clearly: "Memorial to Tsar Alexander II, photographed by User:Giano April 2015.", as even my most ardent detractors will admit, I am indeed User: Giano! Giano (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, the problem is that you haven't provided any information about the source and the copyright status of the bust. No one has disputed that you took the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looks like 1881 is the date Giano (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link to the file. I believe this should be sufficient to clarify the copyright status as free - the sculpture was crafted in 1881 and the artist's dates are indicated as 1838-1916. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the sculpture should be in the public domain because of age. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sculptor of the bust appears to be Matthew Chizhov (1838-1916) [1] and it just looks like a minor clerical error by the State Museum in omitting Chizhov's name on the link given by Giano above. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:23, 7 November 2015 (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:1920s Henry Ludwig Mond, Liberal.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: Delete: No evidence was given that the image was first published before 1923. Although it may or may not be reasonable to assume that the image dates from before that time, copyright law is dependent on publication date. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:1920s Henry Ludwig Mond, Liberal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

It says "c. 1920" which does not necessarily mean that the picture was published before 1923. If it was first published after 1922, then the picture is only in the public domain in the United Kingdom but not in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer Henry Walter Barnett sold his London studio and retired to France in 1920, so it is reasonable to assume that this image dates from no later than 1920. January (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2015 (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:1920s Scott Lidgett.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: Delete: a source showing the image was published before 1923 has not been provided. Copyright law hinges on publication date, and unsourced assumptions are not enough to keep an image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:1920s Scott Lidgett.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Inconsistent source information. It is claimed that the picture was published in 1919, but is also claimed that the picture was created in the 1920s, which is after 1919. Due to the conflicting source information, it is not possible to determine the copyright status of the picture. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not claimed that the picture was created in the 1920s. In fact no date used specifically refers to creation. There is therefore no conflicting source information. Graemp (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "1920s portrait" in the description (i.e. it says that it is a photograph taken in the 1920s). This conflicts with the claim that it was published in 1919 and 1922. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The section 'Description' was not used and is not supposed to be used for recording any creation date. Graemp (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 'Description' parameter is clearly used for date information. The source page does not reveal any information about the year of first publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 'Description' parameter is clearly to be used for descriptive information. The 'Date' parameter is clearly to be used for date information. Graemp (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's what the parameters are meant for, yes. However, in this case, there is clearly date information in the 'Description' parameter. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand that the description "1920s portrait" in the description section may have confused you, as 1920s, though referring to an era, contains numbers that might be confused with a date. If it helps, you could easily delete 1920s, and leave the description as just 'portrait'. Graemp (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - However, removing that information would not actually fix anything, as there currently is no source for any date whatsoever - and the fact that you used different dates at different places on the file information page suggests that you simply are guessing what the correct date might be but that you do not have any evidence that your guess is correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You brought this matter here on the premise that there was conflicting source information through your assumption of a creation date. I have addressed this by pointing out that your assumption of a creation date was incorrect. You are now hopefully in the position to determine the copyright status of the picture. I don't think that it helps for you to speculate on what an uploader may have been thinking when they completed the upload wizard. Graemp (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I brought this matter here on the premise that there is no evidence that the picture was published before 1923 and that the uploader obviously is guessing about the year of creation and publication, as demonstrated by the uploader specifying multiple contradicting dates. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It seems you brought this matter here in the mistaken belief that what is recorded under description refers to a creation date. You are now inferring that specifying more than one date is the problem. I have to assume that you are unfamiliar with what the upload wizard asks of uploaders. It asks for "the original time" of publication with the caveat requesting "as much information as possible". With regard to a date, I did not know about first publication, and rather than leave this blank or say I don't know, I recorded 1920s as this was accurate. It then asks uploaders to provide a "date of creation if different". I recorded the date 1919 because I know the portrait is from a 1919 shoot. I then added under further relevant information, what I knew about publication. It may be time for you to re-visit the image upload process so that you will better understand the information uploaders provide and to ensure you don't again assume incorrect creation dates. Graemp (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graemp, could you confirm where you got this information from (it is not specified by the source)? January (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Items in my collection include 1919 portrait referred to above and cards from 1922 LCC elections referred to on file page. Graemp (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the image was created in 1919 and published in the 1920s? If it was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the United States. But if it was published after 1922, it may not be. Hop on Bananas (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2015 (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:2000Leif Ericson iceland obv.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2000Leif Ericson iceland obv.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

See c:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. No information about where the photograph of the coin comes from. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2015 (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:Alphonse Allais - Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man.ogg

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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alphonse Allais - Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The sound recording was apparently created in 2011, so the person who created the sound recording has obviously not been dead for 100 years. Missing information about the copyright status of the sound recording. Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator doesn't seem to understand that this piece is nothing but silence and this is not copyrightable. Perhaps the licence terms need revising but that's just busy work contrary to WP:BURO. Andrew D. (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, the file seems to be silent, yes, so maybe it is not a sound recording... --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - TThe silence is the point. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. It's just a matter of asking the uploader/creator of this individual file to add his own release. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made it. I release it. I would have thought my tagging would make that unambiguous (and I believe that the "performance" is well under the level of copyrightable effort anyway), but I've thrown a {{CC-0}} on it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:11, 6 November 2015 (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:Handpresso logo.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Handpresso logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

The stuff above the text seems to be too complex for PD-textlogo. Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2015 (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:IPad1stGen.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:IPad1stGen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of the software seen on the screen. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The icons shown on the screen are not the main focus of the image, which is the device as a whole. Therefore their inclusion in the image is incidental. Diego (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole purpose of the picture is to display computer software (a background image of unknown source and several icons), and therefore neither the background image nor the icons are incidentally included. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Computer software is invisible, unless you're looking at the source code itself. What is shown in the image is the art, not the software. Each of the 120*120px icons amounts to less than 0.3% of the 2,277*2,253px image. We could further reduce the image size to make them even less sharp and out of focus. As for the background image, it has been released at Flickr with a cc-by-sa license, do you have any reason to believe that license does not apply? Diego (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The background image is the problem here. Far too much of the image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:55, 7 November 2015 (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:Map showing combat radius (range) of various US Air Force fighter aircraft.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map showing combat radius (range) of various US Air Force fighter aircraft.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Looks like a screenshot of Google Maps. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2015 (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:Old Swan Welcome Sign.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Swan Welcome Sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No FOP for 2D signs in the United Kingdom. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the liver bird emblem is PD - it has been in use in various forms for centuries, and the version on this sign does not look significantly different from this version from a 1922 photo. The rest of the sign is too simple for copyright in the United States. January (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2015 (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:People's beach1.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: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:People's beach1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder to the text on the sign. Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright in the text of the sign. Here's why: The text on the sign was created by the state of Mississippi or a political subdivision thereof, and is therefore a public record of the state of Mississippi. In fact, not just the text is a public record but probably even the sign itself is a public record. Here's the definition from the public records law:

"Public records" shall mean all books, records, papers, accounts, letters, maps, photographs, films, cards, tapes, recordings or reproductions thereof, and any other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been used, being in use, or prepared, possessed or retained for use in the conduct, transaction or performance of any business, transaction, work, duty or function of any public body, or required to be maintained by any public body

Now, you wonder, what is the copyright status of public records in Mississippi? Well, here's what the state law says about who owns them:

Except as otherwise provided by Sections 25-61-9 and 25-61-11, all public records are hereby declared to be public property, and any person shall have the right to inspect, copy or mechanically reproduce or obtain a reproduction of any public record of a public body in accordance with reasonable written procedures adopted by the public body

So, you ask, does this sign fall under the exemptions declared in the cited sections? Nope. Those all have to do with privacy and trade secrets and so forth. Thus, as far as the state of Mississippi, who's the only plausible candidate for a copyright holder, is concerned, the text of this sign is public property and "any person" is granted the right to "mechanically reproduce" it. In fact, given the broad language of the law, it would almost certainly be legal to make physical reproductions of the actual metal sign.

Now, just in case you might think that federal law, which authorizes copyrights in the first place, has anything to do with it, let me note that in the case of public records, federal law defers to state law. Here's the esteemed Eugene Volokh explaining this principle in great detail.

Thus, for these reasons, I disagree that it matters whether or not the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder of the text on the sign.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above limits the use to "reasonable written procedures adopted by the public body" and it is not clear what those procedures are. The lawsuit you linked to is about California, but this sign was created by a different state which has different laws. I don't dispute that signs created by California are in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? The lawsuit I linked to was filed in a federal court and the federal court found that California's policy towards copyright is binding on California political entities because of the federal principle that states determine copyright policies for their subentities, such as municipalities and that federal courts defer to those policies. This is a principle of federal law, and applies to Mississippi as much as to California. If anyone brought suit over a copyright violation from that image it would be brought in a federal court in Mississippi, and the federal court in Mississippi would apply the same principle as did the federal court in California.

The clause "in accordance with reasonable procedures" that you cite has only to do with obtaining reproductions, it does not distribute across the entire list of clauses. This is a canon of statutory construction known as the last antecedent rule. Even if it weren't clear from the plain language of the statute that that restriction only applies to the obtaining of a copy it would be clear from the intent of the statute, but there's no need to go there. At this point you're grasping at straws.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of some lawsuit (possibly that one), we have {{PD-CAGov}}. However, we do not have any {{PD-MSGov}} simply because Mississippi has a different law. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mississippi's law, cited above, is that all public records are public property. Federal law is that state law controls. The day the existence or nonexistence of a Wikipedia template becomes actual evidence for the truth or falsity of any statement will be a sad day indeed. Anyway, the facts are before the community and I don't have anything else to add.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone commits a crime and a copyrighted work (say, a copy of a book) is used as evidence, then the copyrighted work becomes a public record. If I dislike the author of some work, I could commit some crime and make sure to 'accidentally' drop a copy of that author's work at the place where I commit the crime so that the work becomes a public record, and then, according to your logic, that author's work would automatically enter the public domain. That's simply not how copyright law works. For example, it would be useless to sue someone for copyright violation if your work automatically enters the public domain as soon as you submit evidence of the copyright violation. You are mixing up the different concepts 'public record' and 'public domain'. The law you have quoted above is basically only meant to make it possible for people to inspect public records. You might also have noticed that the law does not grant anyone the right to modify the works. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the law does not grant anyone the right to modify the works The words "public property" in "all public records are hereby declared to be public property" pretty much imply that right. The owner is the public, and the owners of intellectual property are not restricted by copyright law to change it. Diego (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if someone sues you for copyright violation, then the evidence (i.e. the work whose copyright you violated) automatically enters the public domain? In that case, suing anyone for copyright violation would appear to be useless. In this situation, "public property" seem to be more of a statement that the public can obtain copies of the material from the authorities but not necessarily that other things can be done with the material. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you think this court argument is super-clever, but it just shows that you haven't read the law, which states explicitly that judicial records are exempt, along with many other law enforcement records. Even if they weren't exempt your argument wouldn't apply since copyright cases are filed in federal court and this is a Mississippi state law. You can't sue or be sued for copyright violations in Mississippi state courts. The text on the sign was produced by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. It is a public record under the plain language of the statute.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

§ 25-61-5 essentially states that the public has the right to obtain and produce copies of public records. § 25-61-5 does not say that the public can distribute those copies or modify public record, meaning that those things are prohibited. A licence which prohibits distribution and modification is not a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have that exactly backwards. In the English common law tradition, and even more so in the United States, whatever is not forbidden is allowed. The fact that the law does not say the public can distribute or modify and the fact that it does not say that they cannot means, in these United States, that they can. It's a fundamental principle of American law. Not only don't you understand American law, but you don't understand public records law. These laws, and Mississippi's in particular due to a long, painful, and bloody history, are intended to prevent anyone from using copyright law to interfere with public use of public records, which is what you're trying to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how copyright law works. Copyright law begins by reserving all rights, and then some exceptions are introduced (for example, fair use and freedom of panorama). When copyright law doesn't mention any exception, there is no exception. In this case, the law you quoted contains an exception for producing copies (so copies may be produced), but there is no exception for distributing copies, performing copies publicly or modifying material (meaning that those things are prohibited). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alf is right about the general principle. I started an article about it: Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Andrew D. (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the way copyright law works. Copyright law begins by saying that everything is prohibited, and then lists a number of exceptions (FOP, copyright expiration, et cetera). If no exception exists, then it is prohibited under copyright law. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those actions are prohibited for *anyone other than the copyright owner*. Copyright law does not forbid the copyright owner to make copies. Since the item belongs to the public, copyright law does not forbid the public from making copies. Diego (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The words "public property" do not seem to indicate who the copyright holder is, but only seem to be intended to tell that the public has the right to access the material. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alf's argument seems quite convincing. Andrew D. (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Diego (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2015 (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:RHS Captain.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:RHS Captain.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

This seems tob e a photo of a badge which was not created by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photograph of part of the old uniform of a government school in Britain, and used to illustrate the article on the uniform. What needs to happen here? Should I add and fill out the "Non-free use rationale logo" template? (I did not take or upload the photograph.) Xanthoxyl ^< 12:04, 6 November 2015 (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:"Winter Sports Week" poster (1924 Olympics).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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Winter Sports Week" poster (1924 Olympics).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

This has a note on the file information page: "There's a good chance this will be certainly non-free under U.S. law, once the Supreme Court rules on Golan v. Holder (by June 2012)." The template {{PD-URAA}} contradicts with this claim. The file is only free in the United States if the artist died before 1937, and only free in France if the author died before 1946. The picture is signed in the bottom right corner, but the image is of so low quality that I can't read the signature. Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (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:Front page, Le Petit Journal, 8 December 1918.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: No Action can be taken on the meta data for this page by Wikipedia Administrators. Unfortunately, nothing can be done through this discussion at this board. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Front page, Le Petit Journal, 8 December 1918.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Might the metadata be copyrighted? It contains quite a bit of text. Cf. wmf:DMCA Cranach Digital Archive where the WMF removed the metadata from a file on Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Administrators can't delete or otherwise edit metadata, so this is well out of our league... — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 13 November 2015 (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:Http,--www.cotswoldlife.co.uk-polopoly fs-1.2023968.1366299363!-image-1731924795.jpg gen-derivatives-landscape 630-1731924795.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Http,--www.cotswoldlife.co.uk-polopoly fs-1.2023968.1366299363!-image-1731924795.jpg gen-derivatives-landscape 630-1731924795.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Invalid PD reason ("Used on Colchester Borough Council's public website"). January (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2015 (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:VlaminckBouvigal.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I fail to see how this can be licensed as FAL given that the artist died in 1958, meaning their art is still copyright until at least 2028. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2015 (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:The AA.svg

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 and tag with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:The AA.svg (delete | talk | history | logs).

The AA's website calls this "unique", so it might be above the threshold of originality in the UK. Adam9007 (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} at least. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2015 (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:Neptunesadventurecover.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of File:Kingneptunesadventure-label.jpg, a non-free video game cover. It's certainly not the uploader's own work, even though he says it's self-made. Adam9007 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2015 (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:Neptuneadventureart.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as above. Adam9007 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2015 (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:Bibleadventurescartridge.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

A significant portion of this photo is non-free artwork. Adam9007 (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2015 (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:Cruis'nexotican64.png

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cruis'nexotican64.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

Video game screenshot. Adam9007 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2015 (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:Toystory2n64cartridge.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toystory2n64cartridge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

A significant portion is this photo is non-free artwork. Adam9007 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2015 (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:Marioparty2cartridge.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marioparty2cartridge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

A significant portion of this photo is non-free artwork. Adam9007 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2015 (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:Arielle Kebbel following her appearance on Home & Family.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arielle Kebbel following her appearance on Home & Family.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Might not be "own work" as it has appeared on a social media account associated with Arielle - see https://instagram.com/p/5gL5eKK5iO/ Tabercil (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2015 (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.