Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/02/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
This photo has watermark printed on. It might violate copyright of photo owner (AFP). Octahedron80 (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright infringement, wrong author and source claim ("own work"). --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
image not in use, and not within project scope Snigbrook (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; apparent vanity joke/insult image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Already located at Category:Art of Peru --ErickAgain 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Made into category redirect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Lower quality duplicate of File:MichaelDrayton.jpg. Blurpeace 20:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Yup. Same res, smaller filesize, visually identical. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently a 1960s postcard, posterior to 1944, PD tag not applicable. Eusebius (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep "Fotografisk bild", simple photo from before 1969, tag {{PD-Sweden}} perfectly applicable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. My bad. I always make the same mistake with this tag... Eusebius (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No real license is given. This image is in fact from K. Parkinson + NORFANZ, not from Greenpeace. See discussion page. --GaAs11671 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note: was initially set to speedy deletion by ComputerHotline, but he did'nt identify the real author, maybe we could ask NORFANZ for authorisation, they seem to give it to several sites? Or not. --GaAs11671 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Very probably it's a or not (:sad:). © NORFANZ Founding Parties © Australian Museum. Revert to speedy deletion, and forget that. Sorry for wasting your time. --GaAs11671 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC) For those who didn't know, this image has been in the main page of French Wikipedia since 2 or 3 days.
Speedy deleted. Copyright violation. Pruneautalk 12:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
and File:My beautiful ass...-).jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A low quality picture of some woman's behind. We have enough of these, and this one has lots of little white rectanges around the edges making it basically useless. Inductiveload (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Common Good (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Keep for File:My beautiful ass...-).jpg while File:08358Bc.JPG is speedily deleted as an exact duplicate. The image does not seem to be so useless.--Jusjih (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weak
Deleted by Jusjih: Exact duplicate: File:My beautiful ass...-).jpg
Looks like advertissement for a website. Out of Scope. --Duch.seb (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this photo on the flickr account owner's photostream. I don't think it comes from his account. So, a deletion may be preferred. Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Good work. With the name i found http://www.flickr.com/photos/felixion/93349428/ is licensed cc-by-sa-2.0. --MGA73 (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Great! Now with much better resolution. Very good photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: OK. Good work by you all. Keep. I ask this DR be closed. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a wax sculpture of Joan Rivers which should make it a derivative since the author has not been dead for 70 years. Also, the US has no FOP for 3D art, only buildings Leoboudv (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wax figures are (AFAIK) allowed on commons, since they aren't considered art as such. I don't know where this was taken, but i.e. the San Francisco Wax Museum explicitly allows taking pictures of their figures. See also Category:Wax museums. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- There were several deletion requests for images of wax figures in the past. Most images were deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures, Commons:Deletion requests/Madame Tussauds and Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures at Tussauds. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... According to that discussion, it would really matter where this picture was taken. If in London, it might be ok, in Germany probably not. --PaterMcFly (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- There were several deletion requests for images of wax figures in the past. Most images were deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures, Commons:Deletion requests/Madame Tussauds and Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures at Tussauds. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: This is in Nevada, USA which is why the lack of US FOP means Commons cannot keep it. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment if this is from Madame Tussauds at Las Vegas, they explicitly allow taking pictures. So I don't think they will oppose on actually using these images (or they would write something like "only for personal use" or simmilar). The extra comment about contacting them if you are a camera team is in my view only to prevent disturbances for the other visitors. If still in doubt, we might ask them. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Allowing people to take photos doesn't amount to a license in perpetuity - they could revoke that permission at any time. Same reason we don't accept license statements that say "you can use my picture." Besides which, it's not clear that this was a work for hire for Madame Tussauds, rather than something an artist owns (that is, they must be the copyright holder to release it). Dcoetzee (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that the revoking of the permission would stand, since whoever uses that image does not necessarilly check back later and they don't need to expect that. The other point is true, but do we really have to care about this or can't we just assume that Madame Tussauds owns what they display unless noted otherwise? --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Commons:Precautionary principle. We delete anything that we don't have good evidence for the copyright status of. And revoking of permission would in fact stand - part of the point of free licenses is to give an irrevocable, perpetual license. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- How do you think revoking will really hold? Even if it does, they would first have to inform anybody using the file that they revoked the license and they could only really sue you if they can prove that you knew that they revoked the license and you then still use the image. The question that remains then is whether we accept images that are free now but could be unfree in the future. The best would probably be if we asked them for permission to release images from their statues under a valid Commons license. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- In any case, "cameras are allowed" is not any sort of license - it doesn't give permission to publish, modify, etc. The author would retain all of these rights, and can enforce them selectively. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt this. If they allow you to take pictures, how can they later come and say: "Well, actually, you could take pictures but only for personal use" if it wasn't stated before? --PaterMcFly (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because the law entitles them to certain rights unless they explicitly waive them. It just doesn't work the way you think. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, but allowing photographs is waiving a right, namely the right to disallow you from taking photos. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's silly, there is no "right to disallow you from taking photos." Nobody can sue you for taking a photo of anything - at worst, they can eject you from the premises. There is a right to control distribution and derivative works though, which is copyright. The rules on their web page are just "house rules" and are not specific enough to be read as a statement of intention to waive copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I think I get your point now. But I still think that they wouldn't make up such house rules if they opposed the distribution of your photos. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's silly, there is no "right to disallow you from taking photos." Nobody can sue you for taking a photo of anything - at worst, they can eject you from the premises. There is a right to control distribution and derivative works though, which is copyright. The rules on their web page are just "house rules" and are not specific enough to be read as a statement of intention to waive copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, but allowing photographs is waiving a right, namely the right to disallow you from taking photos. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because the law entitles them to certain rights unless they explicitly waive them. It just doesn't work the way you think. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt this. If they allow you to take pictures, how can they later come and say: "Well, actually, you could take pictures but only for personal use" if it wasn't stated before? --PaterMcFly (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- In any case, "cameras are allowed" is not any sort of license - it doesn't give permission to publish, modify, etc. The author would retain all of these rights, and can enforce them selectively. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- How do you think revoking will really hold? Even if it does, they would first have to inform anybody using the file that they revoked the license and they could only really sue you if they can prove that you knew that they revoked the license and you then still use the image. The question that remains then is whether we accept images that are free now but could be unfree in the future. The best would probably be if we asked them for permission to release images from their statues under a valid Commons license. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Commons:Precautionary principle. We delete anything that we don't have good evidence for the copyright status of. And revoking of permission would in fact stand - part of the point of free licenses is to give an irrevocable, perpetual license. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that the revoking of the permission would stand, since whoever uses that image does not necessarilly check back later and they don't need to expect that. The other point is true, but do we really have to care about this or can't we just assume that Madame Tussauds owns what they display unless noted otherwise? --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Allowing people to take photos doesn't amount to a license in perpetuity - they could revoke that permission at any time. Same reason we don't accept license statements that say "you can use my picture." Besides which, it's not clear that this was a work for hire for Madame Tussauds, rather than something an artist owns (that is, they must be the copyright holder to release it). Dcoetzee (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of non-free sculpture. No FOP in US. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per previous keep rationale. PoeticVerse (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United States. Blurpeace 05:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that it is comet C/1975 V1 (West). http://images.google.com/images?q=comet+west Comet Halley in 1986 looked unlike this. — Chesnok (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The source links back to NASA's JPL site[1], which clearly describes the image as "Comet Halley". --JD554 (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](https://stardustnext.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/06.jpg){kind=link}
- That JPL site describes that comet as "Comet Ikeya-Seki", but the comet on image is clearly C/2006 P1 (McNaught) — Chesnok (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a deletion issue. It can be renamed and/or description on the image page can be changed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We do not even know the size of the field of view; someone needs to identify the stars in the background. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that it's a promotional photo which can be copyrighted. Origine of the file unknowed. --Duch.seb (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted ? Because of the watermark and the image, I doubt that this picture is in public domain. Maybe a promotional photo. --Duch.seb (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per watermark, blatant infringement of copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
probable copyvio: http://www.colloquium.phys.ethz.ch/gallery/old/0607/ says: "2007 © ETH Zürich, Photos by H. Hostettler and others." There is no indication that User:Sandarfe is entitled to release these images under a CC license. UV (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per delete rationale. PoeticVerse (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, have you tried contacting them to clarify the situation? This should have been tagged for permission, rather than brought to deletion requests. Blurpeace 05:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete delete. Mrs. Heidi Hostettler owns the photo (http://www.heidi-hostettler.ch/) Sandarfe
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Changed from speedy: "Copyvio of http://www.tineye.com/search/d4d05b8f0a396f76b11c81275bb4b254169f10a2 ".
- Comment There is one hit. It that hit not a link to the image on Flickr that is source? Anyone know how we "translate" link to a ordenary Flickr link? --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think I got it now. This image is mentioned as source:
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/261525000 and this image is what tineye found:
- http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/261525000_37bc06ab89.jpg
- Notice the number 261525000 is in both links. I think the two images are one and the same image. So what tineye found is just the image on Flickr that is the source of "our" version. I changed source on image and asked Flickrreview-bot to check image again to find out. If it mentions the "ordenary" flickr link after review then the two different links are the same image. --MGA73 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep look at the others images from the set as well at the other 1000+ images from Alan Light's Flickr account--Justass (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a crop of [2], the Flickr source - and that same image is found by Tineye. The set on Flickr is called "Meeting Michael Jackson 1989" and features many photos of similar quality of the surrounding area. There is every evidence that this license is legit. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The bot showed that the two links are one and the same image. I see no reason not to trust Alan Light. --MGA73 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep By the reasonings above, especially the numerous similar photos by the owner, this seems legit. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 11:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Remember the link http://www.flickr.com/photo.gne?id= ;) http://www.flickr.com/photo.gne?id=261525000 here, no reason to not believe that Alan Light is the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- p.s.: However, the original upload "publisher has relinquished all rights. Free use. No conditions" is complete nonsense, so good that we talked about it, the photo is copyrighted, you can reuse it as long as you attribute the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
it may be not a free image, and not an user's work --Esteban (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Derivative work. The uploader took a number of photos at the Covenhoven historic home in June 09, including photos of this painting and another one. We have no idea who the artist is or when they were painted, so we should assume the paintings are not in the public domain (unless the uploader can supply additional details). Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unless the painting is shown to be public domain, or the photographer is also the artist who created the painting, the copyright remains with the artist rather than the photographer. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. The uploader took a number of photos at the Covenhoven historic home in June 09, including photos of this painting and another one. We have no idea who the artist is or when they were painted, so we should assume the paintings are not in the public domain (unless the uploader can supply additional details). Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A war map drawn by someone in the french military during WW2. That's definately not {{PD-GermanGov}} as it's not a work of the German government. Most likely still copyrighted, as the duration of copyright in France is 70 years. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No free license at web source (which has a clear copyright notice), author listed as unknown; no evidence uploader has any rights to release it as the copyright holder --Infrogmation (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative works not permitted, commercial purpose not explicity allowed Trixt (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative works not permitted, commercial purpose not explicity allowed Trixt (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
misspelling of the hebrew word. Has to be schwa instead of sere in the first syllable. --Shmuel haBalshan (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Ann Sundholm still living so not PD yet. --A333 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Kaarlo Mikkonen died in 2001 so not PD yet. De minimis might apply, but the name and description indicate that the statue was the main motive of the photo. --A333 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia, sculptor Alpo Sailo died in 1955 so not PD yet. --A333 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Bad license, same figure as on this page, this picture is probably under copyright --Odejea (♫♪) 20:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of Voionmaa monument
[edit]- File:Vainovoionmaareliefi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Vainovoionmaakuistomerkki.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor Kauko Räike died in 2005 so not PD yet. --A333 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Fehlender Urheber) --Praesipb (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Bogus nomination. Eusebius (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(my picture, privacy) --Arheo (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Bogus nomination. Eusebius (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded this from it.wikipedia without questioning the existing PD template, which seems to be false on further reflection. Copyright unknown. Laser brain (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly at least incorrectly licensed. Have you contacted the original uploader? - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Will do so today—sorry for the delay. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, the original uploader is no longer active, but they were blocked for copyright violations and their it.wiki Talk page is littered with copyvio and deletion notices. I'd say it's a safe bet this image is a copyvio. --Laser brain (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per concerns about original uploaders trustworthiness. --Martin H. (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The copyright for Canadian coins belongs to the Royal Canadian Mint[3] and the copyright for UK coins belongs to the Royal Mint (see COM:COIN#United_Kingdom). JD554 (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I assume that the image should indeed be deleted from commons. Images such as [4] are used on Wikipedia with a rationale per use, but I guess anything that needs a rationale per use is not allowed on commons? Robertbyrne (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's right, commons only accepts free content. --JD554 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_British_Coinage_2008.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Pruneautalk 16:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
misspelled text on unused image Badmachine (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep unused does not mean unusable. The spelling errors could also be fixed. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- the file is essentially a duplicate of File:San Francisco Landsat7 Lg.jpg with an oddly placed and a strange disclaimer at the top of the image:
WARNING: Note that composition of images and location of faults are approximate and should not be relied upon for geotechnical or building or land purchase decisions - consult an licensed geotechnical expert regarding these matters is this is important to you. No liablity is assumed regarding use or decisions based upon this composite image nor any artistic additions regarding fault location or extent of possible rubble zones. The red locations are wide owing to the scaling of the lower resolution USGS image and does not necessary convey any reliable information in a geotechnical sense.
- the file is essentially a duplicate of File:San Francisco Landsat7 Lg.jpg with an oddly placed and a strange disclaimer at the top of the image:
- if there is a need for this, i could probably figure out how to fix it but ive never seen this kind of disclaimer on any image at wikipedia. Badmachine (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. The Composition (of those two images) would probably be usefully, but that disclaimer is just stupid. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete its hard to imagine any use for this file as it is. the files from which it is composed are still here and it could be remade. probably without weird text. Badmachine (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The file File:Ouvrage Molvange carte.png is an updated and PNG map which replace now this low quality image. --Borvan53 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this a DW of the Simpsons or is it "just" fan art? MGA73 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can an Admin, an experienced user or a trusted user make a comment here? I don't know the answer. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep avoid copyright paranoia Julo (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of copyrighted Homer Simpson character design. See Commons:Fan_art#Copyright_in_fan_art. Drawing it at enormous scale in a hillside may introduce an original element of its own, but does not obviate the original copyright. Examining the Flickr set shows it to be near Polmear House in the United Kingdom, so FOP may apply here, but that would only excuse infringement of the original design in the grass, and not of the character. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per previous delete rationale. Also, I don't see educational value here? Unless we need to depict fan art, I don't see a reason we need to include this image. PoeticVerse (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Shows how easy it is to make fake Stone Age art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Drawing was authorised, it's an ad of The Simpsons Movie. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homer Simpson in Cerne Abbans.JPG. Trycatch (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- What indicates that this is a collage? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Oops, thank you Pieter. It looked to me like a collage of File:Homer Simpson in Cerne Abbans.JPG and another Cerne Abbans image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per Trycatch and related DR. Fox intentionally defaced the English countryside...sad... -Nard the Bard 20:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, FOP does apply. Kameraad Pjotr 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I doubt this image is PD-US. [5] Joan Barry was a British film actress from 1922 to 1932. [6] Unlikely "Prior to 1920".--Laod (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Lacking any indication of where someone found this, or what the basis is to say "Prior to 1920", I lean toward delete. - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- This picture seems to be made before Joan Barry was thirty-five or thirty, i.e. no later than 1938 (remember, she was an actresss from 1922 to 1932). If am I right, this picture might be Public Domain according 1940 January 1st rule, as {{PD-UK-unknown}}. My conclusion: repair license to PDUKunknown and keep. Julo (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- But PD-UK-unknown says "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The author probably has not been dead for 70+ years. See this. PoeticVerse (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Anonymously published old photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, without further information (source/author if known), PD status is impossible to confirm. Kameraad Pjotr 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
no evidence the the IHA have released this as free so we must assume it's copyrighted --Gnevin (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Unlike the other image File:Irelands Flag.svg — which has a distinctive logo in the center — this image (File:Flag of Ireland hockey team.svg) has no real copyrightable creativity as such -- it consists of a simple shield with the traditional quarterings of the four provinces (see File:Four Provinces of Ireland Flag.svg , File:Four Provinces Flag of Ireland.svg , File:Four Provinces Flag.svg , File:Flag of provinces (Ireland).png , File:4pf.svg , File:Four Provinces Flag3.svg etc. etc.) with a generic scroll under it with the word "IRELAND" in a generic font. AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kept, consists of PD elements. Kameraad Pjotr 16:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it a photographer credit that can be seen in the right bottom corner? If so, it is not anonymous, when did he die? If it is not the case, what is the publication date? Is it only assumed that it was before 1944? Eusebius (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Original rationale was just a mistake. It seems however that publication date is just a guess here? --Eusebius (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, without date of first publication, PD-status cannot be confirmed. Kameraad Pjotr 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
