This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It says that on the bottom of the web page. But, you are correct, it is marked as "public domain". The only problem is, we have no way of knowing who the photographer is, and if they're the one who released into the public domain, or if somebody else uploaded the image, without their consent. So, we really can't know the validity of the PD status. --Rob (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that's the problem: Without knowing the author it is quite hard to retrace the copyright status. --High Contrast (talk)
Comment The source World News Network says image is "public domain". Should World News Network be considered a reliable source regarding copyright statements? -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not reliable. But, a high number of image on their site are useable. So, in other cases, it's a matter of taking the info they give, particularly a user id, and seeing if you can find the same image elsewhere (FlickR, or Commons). On an aside, one reason I've noticed them a lot, is they credit me falsely with lots of images I uploaded to Commons, which were taken by other people (e.g. usually U.S. government / public domain). --Rob (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I agree with you Rob! Unless the person can find the exact same photograph on FlickR or other reliable sources to this photogrpah then it should be deleted. Otherwise it should remain.. given the current details. --Fast track (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Weak Keep:No proof that it's not in public domain.Yousaf465 (talk)
Delete There's no proof it's not in public domain, no proof it is, there's just no proof. The site seems to be a hodge podge of stuff taken automatically (without review) from sites, such as commons (including files we might delete subsequently as copyvios), FlickR, and it's own user uploads. They don't seem to have any system of reviewing claims. It's entirely possible, that this file was previously uploaded to Commons, picked up by wn.com, deleted by us as a copyvio, before being re-uploaded to Commons under a new name. We just don't know. Keeping this image, would require contacting the author, and confirming the license status. --Rob (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image is licensed as {{PD-RU-exempt}} and {{PD-US}} at the same time which is nonsense itself. If it is a work of a Soviet state employee, it is copyright protected since {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies to state symbols (i.e. CoAs, currency) and official documents (laws, court decisions), but not to any photo made by a state employee. {{PD-US}} seems to be fake, since the photo could not have been published before 1923. --Blacklake (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excluded from copyright are official documents such as laws, judicial decisions, and similar administrative texts, as well as the official translations of such documents. Also deemed uncopyrightable are state symbols and marks (flags, coats of arms, medals, monetary symbols, etc.).[18] This also applies to the symbols of local or municipal authorities.[19] Works of folklore are also not subject to copyright. Finally, purely informational reports on events and facts are not copyrightable, a provision corresponding to article 2(8) of the Berne Convention. If such a report goes beyond the purely factual and includes any commentary, analysis, prediction or other interpretation it is subject to copyright again.[20].
Respectfully disagree. This is a mug shot taken for Jeckeln's trial (in late 1945/early 1946). The current Russian legislation exempts from copyright "other materials ... of a judicial nature." Mug shots fall squarely within that definition. Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph concerns documents only: "official documents of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character". Russian legislation does not recognize a mug shot itself as a document, as far as I know. --Blacklake (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeckeln (standing) at trial Literal language I'm looking at from the summary of the Russian statute in en:Copyright law of the Russian Federation first says "documents" then says "other materials" in connection with judicial proceedings. Even if "documents" means only writing on paper, "other materials" clearly includes things beyond writing on paper which are connected with judicial proceedings. Since it is undeniable that Jeckeln was tried, the mug shot taken of him in connection with this trial clearly seems an "other material in connection with the judicial proceeding." As to the US, that follows along with the Russian PD. While I am not a copyright lawyer, it seems to me that US PD is proper because this was published 1923-1977 abroad without formal compliance with US registration and was in the public domain in Russia on 1/1/1996, hence it is in the PD in the US. There may be other ways that it is PD US as well. Please note that I have never seen anyone claim to have a copyright over this image, which would be consistent with PD both in Russia and in US.
In addition, please also note that we already have the image on the right, showing Jeckeln in court, which the USHMM has apparently concluded is in the public domain. Now I realize that PD for one image is not necessarily PD for another image. However, this is the same man and the same trial, and since a reputable institution like USHMM has found the one in the public domain, that is a good sign that the other is as well. Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me, the paragraph reads "documents including <...> other materials" quite unambiguously. Otherwise other materials would have constituted a separate paragraph, as, say, state symbols or news reports do.
Provided the photo is not PD in the country of origin, PD-US may apply in en-wiki (that's why many Heinrich Hoffmann's photo are licensed as PD-US there, but not allowed here), but not in Commons. --Blacklake (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mugshots taken entirely by function of a policeman's job have no creative element and do not pass the threshold of originality for copyright, and this may also qualify as a purely judicial document ineligible for protection under Russian law. -Nard the Bard18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. --O (谈 • висчвын) 13:39, 28 September 2009 (GMT)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted.19:28, 2 May 2009 Kameraad Pjotr (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:1964年九龍仔泳池.jpg" (Copyright violation)Rocket000 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'm not sure about the OTRS, but the statue in the image is copyrighted which makes this a derivative work. The picture can be released into the public domain, but I didn't think that it was allowed on Commons because it is derivative of a still-copyrighted 3D work of art. Am I mistaken here? My apologies if I am. --Drilnoth (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; so the image at Wikipedia is incorrect, right? I'd also thought that for Commons things had to be PD in both the country of origin and the US, and if the US doesn't have FoP, would that make a difference? I'm still pretty new to the copyright issues; my apologies if I was mistaken. --Drilnoth (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. Of course you're absolutely right in general that the image is not free in the U.S. because the sculpture (by sculptor Faith Winter; erected 1988) would be copyrighted in the U.S., and the U.S. has no "freedom of panorama" rule for sculptures. That's just one of the longstanding inconsistencies of the Commons: nobody wants to (or has the guts to) mass delete all the images concerned, and thus the Commons just considers the source country when it comes to "freedom of panorama", even though it otherwise generally requires a work to be free in both the source country and in the U.S. Lupo20:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Questionable source and personal rights. It is not clear that this was taken in public or private and the tattoo makes this person identifiable. --EnviroboyTalkCs04:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.17:13, 2 May 2009 Yann (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Wr.jpg" (Duplicated of or superseded by: File:Shattered.jpg)Rocket000 (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is not from the given flickr link and was uploaded only 2 days ago. In this case, the copyright is unverifiable and it cannot be used on Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My error. This image was uploaded on March 29, 2009 and failed flickr review on March 30, 2009--within 1 day--from an account of a person who is not active any longer on flickr. We cannot keep images in this case. It should be deleted. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the 186 images by this flickr account on Commons here , I think the image was probably uploaded when the flickr account existed. So, I hereby withdraw my deletion request. Hopefully, GeoSwan can clarify certain issues so that this problem does not occur again. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
photo of identifiable, though obviously non-notable person with a potentially demeaning description "picture of a short person" and on the :en-page where it is used "An Example of a short person who is not a midget." Image with its description and intended use should either be explicitely authorized by the depicted woman/girl or deleted. Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The only contribution by this user is this image with links to his website and reading like an advert. Please delete for failing Commons scope and because of self promotion Denniss (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Apparently FlickR account is from the US military, but in this particular case, it was a "courtesy" photo, and therefore not public domain like most other photos. --Rob (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I contacted the FlickR account (run by the US military), and they have updated the licensing to the image to "All rights reserved". --Rob (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Kept. Even if there is a mistake in the name, this is not a reason to delete; it can be discussed on the image talk page and a rename requested if necessary. –Tryphon☂23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
user:Otourly added speedy deletion request, reason being copyvio. However, this uploader (User:Sdee) is the member of the organising committee. If they decide to release it under GFDL, then no copyvio here.--Ben.MQ (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well I don't think it is simple enough to be a PD-shape, just as many simple Olympic emblems/logos. -Ben.MQ (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This emblem is approved by the 2nd Chinese Wikimedia Conference Macau Organlizatoin Committe in late April and announced on May 01, 2009 already.--AG0ST1NH0 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, macau committee will discuss this matters. author explain his concept not copy, just similar. Any suggestion to handle this case?--9old9 (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On hold macau committee will discuss this matters, i hope can wait for several days, but this logo should not be used during this period.Pan1987 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Macau Committe is unable to release it under an acceptable license. The file can be uploaded again with a valid license when they sort out the situation. Sv1xv (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Apparent copyright violation. The author Uzeyir Hajibeyov died in 1948. While the opera was created in Russian empire and thus may fall under {{PD-RusEmpire}} or {{PD-AZ}}, there is no information about the performer, so there are no grounds to think that this very file is in PD. --Blacklake (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Performer's rights expire 50 years after the performance in Azerbaijan (per current law; no idea if those rights ever existed at the time or were ever restored). Doesn't really matter who the performer is. Keep unless Russia is considered the country of origin of the opera. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by the date listed. If newer, that may be a problem. Performer's rights seem to be particularly strong in Azerbaijan; the sound recording has a separate copyright as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I should have clarified it earlier. It's the year of the first performance of the opera. And it seems to have nothing to do with the date this very performance was recorded. --Blacklake (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Clearly a comparatively modern recording of the piece, not 1908 as claimed in the description (very obvious to those familiar with the sounds of historic recording technology). The question of whether the copyright on the composition has expired aside, there is no indication that this unsourced and uncredited recording is PD or free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
These aren't all equally derivative, IMO. It appears that the entire category has just been nominated. I would oppose the deletion of these images unless some reasonable rationale is given for each of them or some compelling argument is given explaining why they can be reliably lumped together. Protonk (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepall and nominate individually. There are some here that aren't derivative works at all, some might be, and some that are just straight-up copyvios. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. all are obvious DW: weapons, munitions or logos are clearly work of mind. Photos of figurines and drawings of personnages are also obviously derivative works. PymoussTchatcher - 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The author of this images insists that the images are free (Please see this site).
However, this images look like the character of 2channel very well.
It seems that 2channel or Author of book on 2channel has the copyright of the character of 2channel.
2channel is prohibiting commercial use of data (Please see this disclaimer).
I think that their copyrights might be violated.
I at least think that this image is not public domain.--NamiShelter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am authoer of these images.
I do not understand difficult English , because I am Japanese.
However I allege that The images are free of use.
Actually the images are used by many bloggers in Japan.
No claims from 2channel.
Comment "not commercial" is not free. Such images cannot be on the Commons. But, if the character is like the 2channel characters that's fine. If the drawings are of actual 2channel characters, or are any sort of copy of 2channel's art then they have to go. --Simonxag (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These images arose from 2channel according to
These images are the copies of 2channel. Original pictures are written on this page. (Complete page can see only the member. Please see this archive, No.44 and No.625.)
2channel has the copyright of all writing in 2channel. If you try to write in 2channel, the disclaimer appears.
So I think their copyrights might be violated.
Additionally, 2ch.net has the copyright in Character that almost does the same appearance as them (Please see this model of bus).
This article has the doubt of an original research and notability.
I think these images have the same doubt.
The site that publishes these images says "This site is a joke of course" (Please see this page). --NamiShelter (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So that's a source for these actual images, not just the characters. It would therefore seem that they are clear copyright violations. --Simonxag (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep from uploader: as the source page clearly says, no copyright protection is asserted for that image. While Orbital Sciences may have taken the photo, it has apparently been released to NASA. My understanding of this disclaimer is that the onus would be on NASA if any issues arose. -- HuntsterT • @ • C23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Huntster. Clearly states "PHOTO CREDIT: NASA or National Aeronautics and Space Administration" , Photo courtesy of Orbital Sciences. Ergo, made by OS, but owned by NASA. TheDJ (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the ideas behind the points made in that discussion, it is quite a bit of original research, to use our Wiki term, to assume NASA is not truthful in its statement. We do not know what actually occurred there, just what NASA itself is stating is the license, or lack thereof, for that image. -- HuntsterT • @ • C07:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although images on the nasa.gov main website, often LACK credit at all, and are sometimes copyvios, the galleries have very CLEAR statements about copyright and authorship. Unless we have specific indications that tell us otherwise, the burden is on NASA. Otherwise there will never be a way to make distinctions between material that has been made under contract for NASA, or has been sold to NASA for PD publication, without mailing them for every single case for OTRS statements. That is idiotic and something no sane government agency will waste it's time with. If they say "Credit of" instead of "Copyright of", then the responsibility is NASA's, unless we find evidence to the contrary. No such evidence is known to me. TheDJ (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is explicitly stated to be PD at source, so should be treated as such. It should probably be renamed to correct the spelling of "Vandenberg" though. --GW…21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orbital Sciences take the photo. So the Cpyright Tag should be wrong. The tag, PD-USGov-NASA, is only for photos who are taken by NASA--Uwe W. (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note entirely true, Uwe W. You are probably reasoning from a European/German perspective. If NASA bought all rights to the image, the copyright is theirs. to quote: "Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright." TheDJ (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. The copyright holder has released the work into public domain. I tagged it with {{PD-copyright holder|[[w:NASA|National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA)}}. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki)16:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
They are an amateur team of cyclists 15 and 16 years old, without evidence of authorization of the parents or legal tutors. Violates privacy rights of under legal age, and all contributions of the uploader have been deleted on ca.wiki. --V.Riullop (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they had an expectation of privacy... I don't see the issue there. I would Delete on COM:SCOPE grounds though... I don't see the use for most of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
If this was made in Azerbaijan, then performer's rights (and phonogram rights) expire 50 years after the performance/publication. Those would appear to be long gone. If the composer died in 1948, then that is also OK there, as copyright would have expired on Jan 1, 1999. It is even OK in the U.S., as Azerbaijan's URAA date was in June 1999. The tag may have assumed the URAA date was in 1996 like most others. KeepCarl Lindberg (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I should have clarified it earlier. It's the year of creation of the opera. And it seems to have nothing to do with the date this very performance was recorded. --Blacklake (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you know the exact date of this performance, It can be judges based on. Otherwise we have to find a old (enough) performance of this opera instaed. FYI: Performances like this (2004) are not in PD. -- Meisam (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This picture was taken with my camera when I was at Nortel. I did use paint to add a Nortel text so it apraes like the one they did but it is not.
I just want looking for the CBC picture., but could not find it. I think they had a Canadian flag flying in front of the building. James38 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment: No it has not, thats software metadata. I rely on the claim in the permission field saying, that someone bought the rights and no give the image to Wikipedia. The first claim should be proven with OTRS, the second can be a Wikipedia only/Fair use permission and is not enough. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment The source World News Network says image is "public domain". Should World News Network be considered a reliable source regarding copyright statements? -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Keep Mugshots taken entirely by function of a policeman's job have no creative element and do not pass the threshold of originality for copyright, and this may also qualify as a purely judicial document ineligible for protection under Russian law. -Nard the Bard 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.nortel.com/products/image_library/images/LO_12164.jpg){kind=link}
Delete --Leoboudv (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Speedy keep nonsense troll nomination. Dronebogus (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Info There's a whole category of images like this. See Commons:Deletion requests/Warhammer 40,000 derivate work and fan art. Rocket000 (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
On hold OK, but please do it soon. Sv1xv (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
