Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Portrait made in 1938, very probably copyrighted (highly unlikely that the artist died before the end of the year). Eusebius (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, {{PD-Russia-2008}} applies: Kulikov died before 1942, and very probably did not serve during the war. --Eusebius (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Portrait made in 1939, PD status should be backed by strong evidence. Eusebius (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, {{PD-Russia-2008}} applies: Kulikov died before 1942, and very probably did not serve during the war. --Eusebius (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Painting from 1938, very probably copyrighted. Eusebius (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, {{PD-Russia-2008}} applies: Kulikov died before 1942, and very probably did not serve during the war. --Eusebius (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kulikov died 1941, copyrighted. Eusebius (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, {{PD-Russia-2008}} applies: Kulikov died before 1942, and very probably did not serve during the war. --Eusebius (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kulikov died 1941, copyrighted. Eusebius (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, {{PD-Russia-2008}} applies: Kulikov died before 1942, and very probably did not serve during the war. --Eusebius (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kulikov died 1941, copyrighted. Eusebius (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- My bad, {{PD-Russia-2008}} applies: Kulikov died before 1942, and very probably did not serve during the war. --Eusebius (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- And the uploader agrees with the deletion: "Please delete both photos - my mistake. Now I am much more careful before uploading photos." --Daniel Baránek (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
request of the uploader Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- And the uploader agrees with the deletion: "Please delete both photos - my mistake. Now I am much more careful before uploading photos." --Daniel Baránek (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
user request Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
bad filename. Not Спортивная but Арбатская (Филевская линия) --Zac allan (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Duplicated of or superseded by: Станция метро «Аобатская» Филевской линии, Москва. Вестибюль станции.JPG
This is a photograph of a photograph, a derivative work. There's no evidence that the actual photograph, which I guess hangs in some Poker player's hall of fame, is licenced under Creative commons. --Entheta (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete, clearly a derivative work. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
derivative work Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My mistake: this was not something that should have been uploaded to Commons. --Bobak (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Eligible for speedy deletion as a mistake. So tagged. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Sfu (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no use, and will not be schedule for use in the future though it up-loaded. -W-nexco (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful image, no reason for deletion. --Simonxag (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no use, and will not be schedule for use in the future though it up-loaded. -W-nexco (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful image, no reason for deletion. --Simonxag (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no use, and will not be schedule for use in the future though it up-loaded. -W-nexco (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful image, no reason for deletion. --Simonxag (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no use, and will not be schedule for use in the future though it up-loaded. -W-nexco (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful image, no reason for deletion. --Simonxag (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no use, and will not be schedule for use in the future though it up-loaded. -W-nexco (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful image, no reason for deletion. --Simonxag (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no use, and will not be schedule for use in the future though it up-loaded. -W-nexco (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful image, no reason for deletion. --Simonxag (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This is my own file and don't want to share it anymore.
- Keep File is in use and image has been on commons for over 2 years so was hardly uploaded by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use on ten pages of seven projects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per MGA73 -- ShaggeDoc talk? 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment What is the problem? I mean Jessica Hansson is attributed as the author. So, there's attribution and the image is in use for 2 years. Are they legitimate grounds for a deletion here? --Leoboudv (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)- Keep File is extremely useful. The image has now been released under the CC license, and so it can be shared freely- the license cannot be withdrawn. See point 7B of the full text. Why do you want to stop sharing anyway? J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Commons licenses are not revocable. But we should be reasonable. If the author can give a good enough reason for deletion we should delete it anyway. --Simonxag (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France, the painting is after Fanfan la Tulipe's film poster, not in PD. Coyau (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in France, the painter's work is protected. Also, such a huge graffiti is probably done legally with agreement of house owner. Also, derivative work from the movie, which copyright is included in this image.--Lilyu (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Not permanently installed; the exhibition runs from June 9 to September 9, 2009 only. Artwork is copyrighted (living sculptor), FOP does not apply. Lupo 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Stated as own work, but other institions have obviously had access to the original picture. See for instance [1] and [2]. First one could be the source of the Commons file. Eusebius (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.girodmedical.com/images3/big/1100/1100_big.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Av5MBvmDL._SL160_AA160_.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete As the full picture is hosted elsewhere, there's no chance that this could have been copied from Commons, meaning that this is going to need OTRS permission at least. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- but picture no 1 has a watermark and 2 is smaller --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is the journalist that wrote this article. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I now had a look at User talk:Gframesch - probably all his uploads should be nuked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I think all his uploads are copyvios. I currently delete them (a few each days) on a no source / no permission basis (the user hasn't uploaded for a while so I take my time). I wouldn't oppose a batch nuke. --Eusebius (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete like Eusebius --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The author's claim of "PERMITTED" makes me think (s)he may have email permission, but, without OTRS evidence, that is meaningless anyway. J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not even ready to believe that. He has uploaded dozens of pictures from various sources (some watermarked, some from very different periods, some including DWs of other works...) with the same "PERMITTED" statement. --Eusebius (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 11:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no use, and will not be schedule for use in the future though it up-loaded. -W-nexco (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful image, no reason for deletion. --Simonxag (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
duplicate Ihe tunisie (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-free logo. –Tryphon☂ 11:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeune Afrique is published in France, if the photograph was taken by them it is still under french copyright. Martin H. (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- P.s.: Jeune Afrique is a weekly newspaper, so given the name of the paper and 1970s is not a very good sourcing. It is possible to name the year, issue and at best the page. --Martin H. (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The photo was taken in Tunisia and by a tunisian photographer --Ashoola (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have the name of the photographer? Jeune Afrique usually mentions it right on the side of the picture? Moumou82 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information (name of the photographer, issue number, etc.) –Tryphon☂ 11:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This image was uploaded in July 2007 by Sanseiya, who did not specify a source or author. In September 2007, Siebrand tagged the image as missing source information, which Rottweiler removed, at the same time changing the source to "self-made". I'm not sure what that assertion was based on, and I tagged it as missing source information in November 2007, which Majorly removed. The uploader then changed the source and author to "inconnu" (French for "unknown"), and I once again tagged it as missing source information (because "unknown" is not a valid source). The tag was removed in December by Boricuaeddie. I maintain that the image does not have complete source information. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Based on this edit, it would seem clear that the uploader was not the creator of the image. J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 11:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
author is Les Bossinas (Cortez III Service Corp.), not NASA. shizhao (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The creator of the image is clearly stated multiple times (in the title, and twice in the description of the image). The image was created for NASA by the artist (making it "NASA material"), and the NASA JSC Web Pages Legal Notices page clearly states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA." There are no copyright notices anywhere that I can find stating otherwise (the image is used here, here, and here; Les Bossinas is only mentioned in the third one); therefore the image has no other copyright protection. This is no different than photos or other works created by US military personnel in the course of their work as military personnel: the agency owns the copyright, and since they release all those works into the public domain, they retain no copyright. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here is an article talking about how Bossinas worked for NASA at the Glenn Research Center (formerly Lewis Research Center) illustrating for them. This image is no different than any of the others he created for NASA (some are shown in this article): they are owned by NASA, and therefore retain no copyright unless explicitly noted. This image is not explicitly noted as having a separate copyright, and therefore has none. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The only instance on the NASA websites where the author is credited, the author is credited as "NASA CD-98-76634 by Les Bossinas". If NASA is calling itself the author, I'm fairly sure we can consider this PD. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. PD-NASA Yann (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Author is Les Bossinas (Cortez III Service Corp.), not NASA shizhao (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- No new arguments or new elements added in that new request. Then Keep to respect the DR principles. Angelus (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and smack shizhao for nominating it again for no valid reason. Why do you keep nominating it, shizhao? Everyone already knows Les Bossinas is the artist who created the image (as it very clearly states in the TITLE of the image), but (as mentioned the last time, as seen directly above this section), he created it for NASA while working at NASA, and therefore the image belongs to NASA. Please find something more productive to do as this is a complete waste of everyone's time. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 06:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - created by an artist for NASA - no copyright protection. --S Larctia (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - Jcb (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same one was copied from this photograph. -W-nexco (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? Why do you want this image deleted? What's wrong with it? Multichill (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept Author does not explain his reasons to request deletion (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept - no good reason given for all these DR's (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept - delete File:Shigaraki interchange04.jpg (non-adin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept - no reason is given for all these DR's (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
No evidence for license - http://www.sathyasai.org/ says "all rights reserved". Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
These pictures are all free to the public, that's why they allow you to download them. They have no author subscribed to them and are in the public domain. I will e-mail them to confirm. http://www.sathyasai.org/pictureinfo/content.htm. 207.137.2.162 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC;.Sbs108 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you have email evidence that the content on the website is released into the public domain, could you please forward it, along with links to where the images are uploaded, to our OTRS address as explained here? That way, the Wikimedia Foundation has evidence that the files are released into the public domain. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- However, regardless of what the website claims, it is highly possible they do not own the rights to this image as it is clearly an older picture. J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is the official Sathya Sai Baba organizational website. It must be assumed that they have the legal right to these pictures. We have to assume in good faith that they have a right to the pictures. I am waiting for an e-mail back from them.Sbs108 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe {{PD-India}} applies? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -Andrew c (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader's request and not in use; however, I do not see a replacement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per uploader request, see Category:Shin-Meishin Expressway fro replacements, image is not in use. --Martin H. (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- File:Eye on Asia SmogCity.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Optimism.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Mao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia KoreanNoses.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Japan.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia IndiaChina.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia HKTaxi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Elephant.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Dragon.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Cowboy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Chair.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Bartender.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Eye on Asia Grey Group.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Acceleration's images are all copyvios. These images were previously deleted on en.wikipedia for this very reason example. There's no evidence that the uploader has rights to these images, or is otherwise a designated agent for the company that produced these images. Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 11:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with the nominator. — df| 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - nothing indicates that Eye on Asia would be free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This is apparently not the Flickr user's own image ("picture from RSS photographer"). Lupo 12:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I know some Russian governmental images are free use, but I'm not sure what "RSS" stands for, nor am I quite sure what "Regional Commonwealth of Communications" is. Unless the original source of this image can be determined, it should definitely be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, it would seem he IS the RSS photographer. Perhaps ask the flickr user if the images are his? Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Although http://www.veni.com/ does not seem to be the photographer, I would trust the licensing of his photos on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader's request and file not in use. What is the replacement? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, image is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Author's request, not in use; however, I do not see a reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, image is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request; does not add anything to File:Shigaraki interchange entrance 001.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, image is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request; does not add anything to File:Shigaraki interchange01.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, image is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an excellent photograph where the same object was copied from this photograph, and is no use. -W-nexco (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Why do you want your uploads deleted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, image is within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
image of a Copyrighted diorama see deletions for Edicaran diorama images Kevmin (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide an internal link for the Edicaran/Ediacaran diorama deletions.
- Ordovician Sea.jpg doesn't appear at the Goddard Space Flight Center's sources: Paleobiology and An Online Biology Book by M.J. Farabee.
- If the Ediacaran image was Life in the Ediacaran sea.jpg it was a CG image, but the Ordovician Sea.jpg is a picture of models in a museum, probably taken by Dr. Nicholas M. Short, Sr. himself.--Necessary Evil (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here are the links to the two recent deletions which involved images of these type of dioramas: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Life in the Ediacaran Sea.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ediacaran sea biotics.png. The problem with the image is that there is no freedom of panorama in the United States so any image posted of a diorama like this must have the permission of the copyright holder, which is either the artist who made the image. Or in the case of the Smithsonian dramas, likely where this image is from, the Smithsonian itself, which does not allow images if its displays. Re: Life in the Ediacaran sea.jpg, this is not a CG image but an image of the Ediacaran sea diorama in the Smithsonian and thus is not publishable without the permission of the Smithsonian.--Kevmin (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Photo may be by NASA, but no evidence of permission from creator of sculpture (diorama) and no FOP for sculptures in the US. --Simonxag (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If dioramas are copyrighted then it's indifferent who photographed it. The diorama has been identified as a Smithsonian one so following that I support a deletion, sorry. --Necessary Evil (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unsourced; previous uploader on en:Wikipedia made no claim that image was public domain nor to be author nor copyright holder. --Infrogmation 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This image is clearly older than 70 years and therefore in the public domain. Karl Stas 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The age of the photo is not so "clear" to me; Pons lived into the 1970s. In any case, mark on the photo seems to read "DeBelle" or "DeBells", "N[ew] Y[ork]", so it is a US work, and without other information about source and copyright cannot be assumed to be copyright expired unless it can be shown to date from 1922 or earlier. Per the en:Wikipedia article, she did not even make her operatic debut until 1928, and continued performing roles professionally to 1960. -- Infrogmation 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader en:User:Karl Stas has not been able to provide source information. Thuresson (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
(Note: This is not the same image as an earlier image with the same name previously deleted.) Dubious license on Flickr. I strongly doubt the Flickr user is the actual photographer/copyright holder; their Flickr stream seems to be a collection of found images, dubiously tagged CC. --Infrogmation (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Flickr page is made up of what seem to be scans and should not be trusted. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Mbdortmund. –Tryphon☂ 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
