Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 June 10

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. File not created by uploader as claimed; no claim of fair use. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:500 and 5 Movie Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Film poster, likely copyrighted. — ξ^xplicit 00:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Likely copyrighted. No fair use claimed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MetroxicalNewYork Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Poster, likely copyrighted. — ξ^xplicit 00:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PtujMuniFlag.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative of http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/si-096.html (site allows for non-commercial reuse without modifications, so it is not free) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosa Mendes - Queen of FCW.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work claim. Judging by the pixelation, this is almost certainly not an original photograph but a video screenshot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image taken from IMDB article. Possible copyvio. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To put it kindly, I think that the uploader hasn't grasped the idea of copyright. Xe has uploaded several images taken from around the WWW, without paying attention to who the copyright holder is and what the copyright licence is. All of these images have been replaceable fair use images of currently living persons, in any case. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siegfried roy statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As far as I can find out using google this is a statue located in Las Vegas and it is perhaps from 1993. According to there is no FOP in the US. So why should this statue be free? MGA73 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a copy of the statue, it is a photograph of the statue. Bearing that in mind, go and read what you've just hyperlinked to. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cream of the beatles.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is quite clearly not the uploader's own work, as claimed in the file description. SuperMarioMan 13:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead a rip-off of the Let It Be album cover. SuperMarioMan 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Regardless of whether the original photographer/group can be identified, it was clearly published in one form or another at least as early as 1880 and distributed for missionary fundraising efforts (cf. http://www.flickr.com/photos/elcaarchives/5632054529/) . Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:India-famine-family-crop-420.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that this image was published before 1923, source is unclear with no evidence of licence, no such thing as the "British Royal Photography Services" MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it really was from China Daily then it couldn't have been published there before that newspaper was founded. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way: there's a copy of it in the Smithsonian. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Photo from the 1970s. Photos from Argentina have to be taken before 1971 and have to be published before 1976 in order to be free in the United States. Due to the inexact date, it could be free in the United States, but only if it was taken in 1970.

Replaceable fair use rationale: He was an active player from 1970 to 1982. Photos taken in 1970 (i.e. during his first year) are free if they were published before 1976, so it is likely possible to find a free photo taken during his career. As he quit playing 30 years ago, a modern photo might not be suitable, but it might be possible to find an old photo. Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osvaldo Cacciatore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 1980 photo. Photos from Argentina have to be taken before 1971 and have to be published before 1976 in order to be free in the United States. May qualify for fair use unless earlier photos of the same guy exist. Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:UKstamps4reigns.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the stamps. Are the stamps really free? MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Did uploader create the drawing? MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description supplied by the uploader seems quite clear on the point that it's a photograph of a picture published in 1935. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charlevoix metro.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a stained glass wall. According to Commons:Commons:FOP#Canada there is FOP for 3D works but not 2D works. And murals are mentioned as not ok. But what about this one? MGA73 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Derivative work of a artwork on the wall. According to Commons:Commons:FOP#Canada there is FOP for 3D works but not 2D works. And murals are mentioned as not ok. But what about this one? MGA73 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crémazie-StationArt.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of art on the wall. According to Commons:Commons:FOP#Canada there is FOP for 3D works but not 2D works. And murals are mentioned as not ok. But what about this one? MGA73 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cigar Box Label - Old Judge.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a derivative work of a cigar box label. It is called "old" but how old? MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucius Smith, Bishop of Knaresborough.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• How is this photo? Who is the photographer? Why is the uploader the copyright holder? Permission? MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I bought the photo, I think in a shop in Bournemouth BUT I could not prove that if you think it should be deletedBashereyre (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be a photo of a photo. The original photo can impossibly have been taken four years ago since the man on the photo died in 1934. When was the original photo taken and when was it first published? If it is a private photo by an unidentified photographer, it is normally unpublished and thus copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since it was taken. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: keep, after discussion with another admin. This statue is likely in the public domain. — ξ^xplicit 01:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hail To The Sunrise Statue.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• How old is this statue? How do we know that it is free? MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The photo was taken by me, in the fall of 2004. Probably just didn't get transferred to Wikimedia Commons properly. How do I go about clearing this up? ToddC4176 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • ToddC4176: You can't take photos of statues in the United States unless the copyright to the statue has expired. See Commons:COM:FOP#United States and Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for more information. MGA73: Consider searching for United States statues in SIRIS before reporting them as possibly unfree. In this case, see here. The statue was apparently installed in 1932, so there are two requirements for it to be copyrighted:
      1. It must contain a copyright notice ("© 1932 name of copyright holder"). SIRIS mentions an inscription, but doesn't tell what the inscription says, so it isn't possible to tell whether the inscription contains any copyright notice. The copyright holder is normally the sculptor, but the sculptor is listed as being unknown, so unless the copyright holder is someone other than the sculptor, I don't see how the statue could have a valid copyright notice. If the statue doesn't have a valid copyright notice, the statue is in the public domain, see {{PD-US-no notice}}.
      2. The statue was installed before 1964. For that reason, the copyright would have to be renewed 28 years after installation. Maybe the copyright never was renewed? If not renewed, the statue is in the public domain, see {{PD-US-not renewed}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 consensus to delete. Statue is likely public domain. Revisit if new info comes to light. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Florida-The Elk On The Trail.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• How old is this statue? How do we know that it is free? MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo was taken by me, in the fall of 2004. Probably just didn't get transferred to Wikimedia Commons properly. How do I go about clearing this up? ToddC4176 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also the section above. Apparently a statue from 1923, see [1]. It has the same requirements for copyright notices and renewals as the previous one. The difference is that SIRIS includes the inscription this time. No copyright notice is mentioned, so I'm inclined to say that the statue is {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Statue is likely public domain. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adams-McKinley Statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• How old is this statue? How do we know that it is free? MGA73 (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo was taken by me, in the fall of 2004. Probably just didn't get transferred to Wikimedia Commons properly. How do I go about clearing this up? ToddC4176 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seem to be lots of different statues of this person, but I'm guessing that it is this one since the other ones seem to be in other states. It seems that the statue was installed in 1903. Statues installed before 1923 are in the public domain, see {{PD-US}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The file contains a logo that is fair use File:FallsChurchLogo.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the logo from 1948? If so, it is probably possible to find a pre-1989 print somewhere without a copyright notice... --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Town of Pittsboro, Indiana (logo).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Logo. Is uploader the designer of the logo or "just" the photographer? MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:460 info plaque.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Nice photo but it is a derivate work of the plaque. The photos are probably old enough to be PD but what about the text? MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural and Graffiti on Western Avenue at Pico, Los Angeles.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the Mural and the Graffiti. There is no FOP for that in the US. The Graffiti is not a big problem but the mural is. It is a work of art. MGA73 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the graffiti illegal and unsigned? See Commons:COM:CB#Graffiti. Is there anything which isn't graffiti? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gunfighter Mural, 408 Pico Blvd., Downtown Los Angeles.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the mural. There is no FOP for that in the US. MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:California History Mural on Washington Mutual Branch, Studio City.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of the Mural. I'm not sure there is FOP for that in the US. MGA73 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Anti-Vivisection Review (Lizzy Lind af Hageby).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The book is a 3D object. Wouldn't the photo have to be taken from the front and without the spine and other things in order to qualify for {{PD-Art}}? Compare with Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I think a month is long enough to wait for someone else to close this thing. Feel free to nom again if you disagree, but nobody (including the nominator) seems to really think this should be deleted and I'd like to get it off my watchlist. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No FOP for signs in the United States, see Commons:COM:FOP#United States. Mentions the National Register of Historic Places to which it was added in 1988, so it is presumably a recent sign. Post-1978, so appears to be unpublished and thus exempt from the copyright notice requirement, see Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Not sure if it is eligible for copyright in the first place, though. Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the text is so short that it is PD-ineligible. --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a basic statement of fact, and not even a full sentence at that. No creativity, no logo, nothing. Stuff like this is exactly why I never upload my photos to Commons. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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