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.
Piracy; Source: TV Animation "The World God Only Knows: Goddesses" FLAG 1.0 (Episode 1) 著作権侵害; 典拠: TV アニメーション『神のみぞ知るセカイ 女神篇』FLAG 1.0 (第1話) Waiesu (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2016 (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.
Claimed photo from commercial shoot - if it is true, the photographer probably doesn't have the right to release this image independently. IIRC, however, this is a crop of a previously deleted image that was a magazine cover, this time with the words cut out. MSJapan (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2016 (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.
Kept: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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.
According to description, this is a frame grab (=derivative work) of a copyrighted video not created by the uploader. No evidence for permission of the copyright owner. — YerpoEh?09:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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.
No confidence that user created these advertising images for the airline, nor the images of the lounges and airplanes. Wildly varying sizes, colors, styles, overprinting on at least one image, etc. Also duplicate images.
Deleted: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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: per nomination. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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.
also file:Jaidev vedas.jpg I deleted speedily most of the user's uploads, because I found them on external sites with earlier date and at least same resolution. I did not find these photos, but they are small and without metadata, probably also copyvios. Taivo (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2016 (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 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 file seems to be a photograph of a screen displaying a two-dimensional copyrighted work (the mascots of the 2016 Olympics). Wouldn't it be a derivative work and therefore non-free? Mz7 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As uploader. Is it a photo of a screen? Yes. Is it an image of the mascots of the 2016 Olympics? Yes it is. So this should be speedy deleted. Tm (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2016 (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 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 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.
Advertising for a website, four versions of the same logo. The only uploads by a single-purpose account. The link to the website no longer works, so the website is probably gone now anyway. None of the files are in use and they have no potential uses. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2016 (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 initial version of this file was created by me, it is available on Bitbucket along with the source files.
It was modified before printing by some unknown to me designer to the version which is uploaded. CC BY-SA 4.0. requires to mention if the licensed material was modified. This wasn't done in this case.
Considering that the version besides just changing design slightly, lacks of some content and introduces some issues, such as:
Puts Wikipedia link near Wikimedia logo and Wikimedia link near Wikipedia logo
Modifies a contest winning photo by adding some funny background instead of sky
, I find it unacceptable and even slightly offending to have it attributed to my name. It was bad enough that I forgot to mention that Wikimedia trademarks belong to Wikimedia Foundation Inc. in my version. Actual printed version also has violation of Wikimedia visual identity guidelines (not white monochromatic background for Wikimedia logo), which was the most severe issue, and full stop added after «млн» which is a very blatant mistake, I see that in this e-version those are fixed.
This all being said, I have never gave permission to neither Anna Khrobolova individually nor to Wikimedia Ukraine as a whole to license my work under the CC BY-SA 4.0. license to begin with though I am not opposed to it as I was going to upload my PDF to Wikimedia Commons from the start and would do it if not for this pre-print modification (it makes little or no sense to upload the version of printed materials which was not actually printed) but as was mentioned this is for so long as others' changes are not attributed to my name.
As to the permission from the designer mentioned there is no evidence of such.
As I think we all are interested in keeping the file online here, I suggest the following steps to be followed:
Permission from the designer mentioned obtained and/or evidence of such provided;
The description page edited in order to reflect the fact that the version is modified version of my work rather than my work itself;
Permission from me obtained. As I say, I am not going to oppose, but assuming that I automatically give permissions without asking is just wrong.
I think it must also be mentioned that this version is an improvement comparing to the one printed otherwise people might perceive it as the very same one just in different medium (this is just usefulness of the file and fullness of description rather than copyright issue though).
Jcb, 2 fortnights has passed, there's no evidence of the permission ever being sent other than the template claiming this. I've just tried to find it in OTRS (I looked in permissions-uk, permissions-ru and ran a couple of fulltext searches) and did not succeed. Either I was unlucky or it indeed was never actually sent. What do you suggest as an adequate amount of time to wait here? OTRS process, when there's possibly no OTRS involved yet, looks like too weak a substitution at this point of time for this nomination. --Base (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The file should tag itself for speedy deletion tomorrow, the current OTRS tag was placed 2 September and grants 1 month for the ticket to arrive. Jcb (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2016 (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 is a webgrab as multiple versions are available on the internet predating local upload. If this loc image is PD-US-Gov then the license could be changed and the image kept, but I'm not so sure as many images from the SALRP have been deleted here. —SpacemanSpiff05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.. I found the file in Tamil wikipedia with cc attribute sharealike 2.0 . So relying on that I moved that file to commons. More details to be confirmed with the original uploader. -- Balaji (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2016 (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 - it's highly doubtful whether that file should have been deleted, the artwork in the middle of the roundabout seems COM:DM to me. And within this collage it's certainly DM. Jcb (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2016 (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 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 Facebook source names one creator, our PD release names someone else and the uploader is yet another name. This image almost certainly comes from a previously published Indian book, film or magazine Sitush (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made a couple of mistakes. I neither checked all the Facebook photos of the permission granter nor I noticed the original uploaded version of the above image here, which was uploaded on the same day, i.e. on 26 September 2013. Now the original uploaded version at the Commons is of 640 × 960 pixels. And the only copy of that resolution is found here, which is dated 16 April 2013. All other copies on the internet are of lower resolution. So, the original version was a possible copyvio. But, as far as I could found, the permission granter of the above image has the oldest copy of it on the internet, which he uploaded on his Facebook account on 27 March 2013 – click here – and that's of 480 × 720 pixels. So, the present version at the Commons doesn't seem to constitute copyvio. - NitinMlk (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2016 (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 doubt that these photographs are the own work of Frank Janssen. The Pictures of Ad Simonis and Frans Wirtz look like they're screengrabs that have been taken from television broadcasts. EXIF data is missing and in the PNG file format.
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 file was initially tagged by MKFI as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Flickr photo marked "All right reserved": https://www.flickr.com/photos/94204153@N04/28458516161/. Converting from speedy to normal DR: uploader user name is Florian Koschat. This is not a self-portrait however, and we do not know who the photographer was. MKFI (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2016 (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.
A magyar törvények szerint a plakátokok engedélykötelesek. A politikai plakátokra is ugyanez vonatkozik. Ezért a szerző vagy a párt engedélye kell a használatához. Az engedély nélkül a kép jogsértő. Erre a képre nem vonatkozik és nem vonatkozhat a de minimis, mert kivágható különhasználható formában a plakát a képről, aminek amúgy is ez a központi eleme. Ez egy két dimenziós plakát, amely időszakos jelleggel lett kihelyezve, ezért a Freedom of Panorama indoklás sem áll rendelkezésre. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian Copyright Act (Act No. LXXVI of 1999 on copyright) The Cases of Free Use „Article 68 (1) Of a fine art, architectural and applied art creation erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place a view may be made and used without the authorization of the author and paying remuneration to him.“ -> It is a political poster, it is not outplaced with a permanent character + Commons:DW. Fauvirt (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2016 (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 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 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 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 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 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 bought this piece of paper (publication with photograph) for my collection at the auction! And I made the picture of it. All this is my own work!!! --DKP64 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2016 (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.
"The "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (2001) Article 22, clause 10 states that: [A] work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon... in the case of: copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place " This image has no indication of artist name and title. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2016 (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.
No indication of why this multimedia show would be considered open and available for photograph: no location, no artist's name, no exhibit title, etc. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2016 (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.
No indication of user's own work on this series of images, illustration, book cover and some form of text, all of which look more like promotion or self-promotion than useful for educational purposes. There is also issue of Copyright for the images in four out of five of these images, and text copyright on the remaining one.
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: I made an error with the VFC, and nominated these over again when what I was trying to do was to delete them per their prior deletion request. Sorry for the error!. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2016 (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 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 by myself with the camera of my cell phone.
In "Einzelnachweise" this info table was named but there is no link to it
User:ralfdoma
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.
It's highly unlikely that this packaging has been identical for 70 years plus the life of the original author since it contains modern elements such as bar code and nutrition information. First retail barcodes in 1974. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2016 (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.
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Uck22/logs (last remaining file of 8 uploads in 12.2013).
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.
Oppose for two reasons - is there any pic of the insect species on Commons? The insect was in motion and hence clarity was not 100%. I will support deletion if somebody comes with a better pic of this species insect. --Muzammil (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2016 (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 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.
File has no possible uses here, and is out of scope. It may also be a copyright violation. Note the crest in the background. Diannaa (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2016 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 photo has two licenses and both are wrong. It cannot be published before 1923, if date is 2nd February 1923. And license for source country Spain – it is claimed to be a selfie, but I have doubts. And Spain demands 80 years from death, not 70. Taivo (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2016 (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.
Out of scope. There's no reason to use an altered version of a PD artwork as an illustration of either the artwork or the subject. MSJapan (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2016 (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.
As much as I would like to keep this photo, unfortunately it is not free. The author died in 1991, therefore, as mentioned at the source [3], this photo is not in he public domain in Canada until 2042-01-01. As a photo published in Canada circa 1954, it will be in the public domain in the United States circa 2050. This was not a government photo. It was published for publicity of the political party, not by the government. The source states that the copyright is owned by the heirs of the photographer. Non-commercial reproduction is allowed by the copyright holder, but that is not sufficient for the policy of Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2016 (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.
Nominated from a list provided by the Wellcome Library on behalf of the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC), the original source of the images. The copyright of the files has been changed by the Wellcome to CC-BY-NC-ND. The list requires a more detailed review and discussion, as some images are public domain by age or otherwise ineligible for a copyright claim by the RAMC. I suggest where there may be a rationale to keep, this is added to the full bulleted list below and there is a presumption that any without comment will be deleted.
As this is a complex mass deletion nomination, I suggest more than the conventional 7 days are allowed before closure, depending on how many volunteers take part in helping to review copyrights. Note that not all photographs or documents in the list were first published in the UK. --Fæ (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addenda
The images were uploaded, mostly by me, with CC-BY licenses. As these were incorrect, for any image to be kept, it should be replaced with a public domain license if there is a rationale for one. Possible licenses which have been used include {{PD-UKGov}}, {{PD-old-auto-1996}}, {{PD-UK-unknown}}, {{PD-old-100-1923}}. Please remove images from the maintenance category whenever this is completed.
Keep Dated by the RAMC as circa.1900, we can do a little better. Sister Pretty appears in an edition of The Lancet, August 1900, in a report received 13th August 1900. This states that Sister Pretty (and two other nurses) were leaving Africa after Pretty's convalescence from enteric fever (typhoid). This gives a likely date of July 1900 for the photograph or more conservatively July/August 1900. The photographer is unknown so copyright expired by 1950 (or earlier) under the pre-1996 50 year rule. --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lithograph by Christopher R. W. Nevinson (d. October 7, 1946), made while he was hospital staff. The print was in 1915, published in a gazette that it is unlikely that the RAMC legally represents. This is either already public domain by the 70 year rule, or it will be on 1st January 2017. I don't believe deletion and undeletion a couple of months later is worth it for a hypothetical issue of a scan of a 1915 publication. --Fæ (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1917 press photo cut & pasted from newspaper print in a scrapbook, unknown photographer. Public domain by age. The added-value of simple handwritten signatures and dates is not copyrightable under UK law. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question J.P.D. Hewitt does not appear in the IWM collections or anywhere obvious as a war artist. However this drawing by him when resident in hospital in 1916, has been republished in a couple of books in recent times as an important early depiction of shell shock. The death date of the artist is not in the Wellcome catalogue. --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1937, photographers were Gale & Polden, who were subject to a takeover in 1981. Public domain as copyright expired under the 70 year rule, based on an anonymous photographer. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question No date given, though from the style it may have been taken around the WW1 period, and it's unclear if Webberley is the photographer or a collector. --Fæ (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Date given as 30s and 40s and unknown photographer. However there is a reference to Operation Shoveller in Jordan, which is contradictory as this was in 1970. Sufficient doubt for copyright to be a concern, unless more information turns up. --Fæ (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed Operation Shoveller from 1970. The photograph dates to ~4th October 1970, when the 3rd Division Field Hygiene Section were deployed on "Environmental sanitary tasks and assistance to the local public health system". 8 personnel, three Land Rovers and two trailers were delivered from Cyprus to Amman by Hercules C-130. There's an article in the Journal of the RAMC describing that one photograph, available at doi: 10.1136/jramc-117-02-04 should anybody be interested. Nick (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to http://search.wellcomelibrary.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb1911915 for the archive record. The only connection between photographs in the album is that they were collated to represent the RAMC's history. Though the catalogue record says there is accompanying text, this has not been made public, nor has it been clarified which photographs any text may relate to.
Delete Apparent archivist notes, typewritten. There are likely to have been created by Keith Leonard, Museum Technician of the RAMC Museum, after 1960. --Fæ (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Archive date gives maximum possible age of 1960 and subject appears WW2 period. As an army photograph PD-UKGov applies for photographs created before 1957. --Fæ (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artwork created in 1863, so under UK law the work must be public domain and the photograph can be considered a faithful reproduction. --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PD-70 applies. Photograph taken in 1860s by photographers recorded elsewhere as "Adolphe Duperly and Sons". The last known photographs taken by the photography firm are recorded as c.1920, though these are unlikely to have been by the same active photographer, but their descendents. --Fæ (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following 3 images are from RAMC 198, described as 7 volumes (numbered 5-11) of Sir Joseph Fayrer's "notes of interesting cases in the Medical College & Hospital (at Calcutta)", in chronological order and are dated 1862-1871. Joseph Fayrer died in 1907.
Sir Charles Bell's watercolours of wounds sustained by soldiers at the Battle of Waterloo, June 1815. Published 1836, so public domain by age. Default to Keep. --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photographs by Sidney Smith (physician) Photographs which are part of archive RAMC 594/4, were taken between 1942-1944 and are part of 4 volumes of photographs which can be considered taken during his wartime service and property of the UK Ministry of Information / Crown. They are described as "Subjects include places, customs and archaeology as well as colleagues, casualties and victims of tropical diseases, mainly smallpox and leprosy."
RAMC 730 Album of photographs of 34 (1/1 West Lancashire) Casualty Clearing Hospital, RAMC Territorial Force, on the Western Front, 1914-1919. Photographer unidentified. Series may be marked as PD-UK-Unknown, however as there has been no assertion of prior publication, RAMC publication rights may apply. Delete per COM:PRP. Ref http://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b1962623
RAMC 738 is described as Photograph collection of Lieutenant Colonel G.J.S. Archer, RAMC, 1900-1916.
RAMC 738-9 is an "Album of photographs of No. 40 Field Ambulance at Gallipoli during the First World War", 1915. There is no evidence that these were part of military reports, or that the photographs were taken as part of Archer's duties. We currently have no death date for Archer, however The London Gazette states:
ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS. Lt.-Col. G. J. S. Archer, M.B., having attained the age limit of liability to recall, ceases to belong to the Res. of Off. 15th Nov. 1929. I do not know what that age limit was, but it is possible he went on to survive until after 1945 (70 years ago).
RAMC 760 Photographs taken between 1916 and 1918 wartime plastic surgery photographs credited to Albert Norman. It now seems likely that this was Albert Norman, later to be first secretary of the Institute of Biomedical Science, who died in 1964. All photographs must be a Delete, unless marked otherwise below, as potentially under copyright and with a valid NC-ND restriction. --Fæ (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are the basic covers only, so copyright ineligible on the presumption that the modern Wellcome photographer is not claiming separate copyright (this has not happened once in the track record of 100,000+ images from the Wellcome). --Fæ (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RAMC 801-22-30 is described as "Official war photographs of field ambulance equipment and tents, casualty evacuation and blood transfusions (in North-West Europe)" and dated 1944. Keep as PD-UKGov applies. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RAMC 801-22-33 described as "Set of photographs mounted on card, of base hospitals, advance dressing stations etc.", c.1939-1945. As with others in folders in the same part of the archive, these are photographs taken as part of official reports, so were MOI/Crown property. Keep PD-UKGov applies. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RAMC 801-22-34Keep x 17 - this album has a record at the Wellcome catalogue and viewer dating all photos as 1944. The album "Set of photographs of casualties, treatment, etc. (in North West Europe)" is from the same source, apparently unknown photographer. The backs of the photographs have been scanned and some have annotations, possibly contemporary, which confirm the title given. Consequently the licence for all the following images can be replaced with {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Though we cannot confirm that the photographer was official, it is highly unlikely that these photographs were taken by a private individual rather than on army business, so it may be argued that the narrower PD-UKGov license applies. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This album was taken in 1915, during the Dardanelles campaign. I have been unable to find a death date for Pearson, though in 1915 as Captain of HMHS Dongola he would probably have been over 30 at that time. Some photographs in the album may not have been taken by Pearson.
The four photographs below are all of active service members and one of a military disembarkation in Gallipoli, so based on their content, a license of {{PD-UKGov}} seems justified, in the absence of a death date for the photographer, or certainty that the photographer was Pearson himself.
Several photographs of the Officer's Mess in Singapore. No photographer is named, however as the date is only given as "1950's", copyright should be conservatively calculated from 1959. Consequently these are a Delete, with undeletion scheduled for 2029. --Fæ (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Ernest Morley: certificates and papers , Album of photographs of the RAMC in Limerick, Ireland, and in the Middle East during the First World War. Being a collection of papers, it is unclear if Morley was the photographer. As Morley is shown in some of the photographs, there must be a presumption that in those cases the photographer is unknown, despite Morley being the credited generic author in the archive record. For official records and travel documents, these may be safely assessed as expired Crown copyright. Keep/delete decisions here are conservative as Morley's date of death has yet to be determined. As a significant number of Morley's service papers are available at http://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b18413249 (not all on Commons), further research should be able to provide a verifiable date of death. --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 60 years old, published in 1956. However this is a photograph for an official report of the British Army Medical Services, consequently Crown property which has copyright for 50 years after it was created, copyright now expired. PD-UKGov applies. --Fæ (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RAMC 1237-2 From the description the "scrapbook" of photographs may not have been official, so it is uncertain whether this would have been Crown property. If there is a claim of publication rights that can be supported, the license of PD-UK-unknown may be overruled. Delete per COM:PRP. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RAMC 1242 Sir David Bruce's lantern slides. 1883-c.1918. Bruce died in 1931. As the slides were made for public presentations, they are considered published before 1918 and public domain as of 2001. Default of Keep for all items listed below, one suitable license would be {{PD-old-auto-1996}} with deathyear=1931. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel M.M. MacEwan's records of the medical services of No.6 Airborn Division and 16 Parachute Field Ambulance (No.1 Airborn Division). Report made in 1944 as part of the Colonel's duties, consequently PD-UKGov applies. Default to Keep. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:RAMC 1637-6 RAMC/1637/6 Two photographs of casualty transport by jeep, France 1944.
File:Muniments Collection Wellcome L0029461.jpgKeep PD-EU-Anonymous and PD-UKGov applies as this was taken by an unnamed soldier in France as part of their duties. A Tineye search shows this photograph has been used on a D-Day commemorative postcard, though I have been unable to find a high resolution version to refer to. --Fæ (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:RAMC 1752-2 Lieutenant Colonel John H. Plumridge's collection of photographs of casualty evacuation for his book Hospital ships and ambulance trains (London: Seeley, 1975), and notes, correspondence and drafts for other works. The photographers vary and any that may be out of copyright that were collected for publication in 1975, however some can be found published elsewhere such as by the U.S. National Museum of Medicine (medicalmuseum.mil) and would not have been uniquely collected or discovered by Plumridge. Deposit with the RAMC was in 1985. Those that were published or made available to the public before 1991, can have no secondary claim of publication rights. Copyright for each image requires separate assessment.
Described as "Papers of Major Allen Percival Prior, RAMC, with further material re the liberation of Belsen Concentration Camp, Germany, in 1945, collected by Colonel Ethelwald E. Vella". Ref http://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b1865857x. Note that some parts of this collection are distressing images of Nazi concentration camp victims, and should be treated with due care.
In terms of copyright, unless other assertions are made, photographs taken by Allied forces of the concentration camps or their activities during camp liberation have high potential educational value and may be considered official military reports, as a rationale that any were 'personal' photographs would appear unsupportable. Consequently the photographs by RAMC soldiers can be reasoned to be MOI/Crown property and {{PD-UKGov}} may be used as a default. --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pibwl: I was interested to see your comment. Checking over this photograph shows me that this is of Lt.-Col. Spencer, who in the 1980s claimed to have been the first Allied soldier to enter Belsen. As far as I'm aware this is the only photograph we have with Spencer identified, so has educational value even if not great quality. This photograph was taken at the Belsen concentration camp in 1945. This photograph was taken as part of the record during liberation of the camp, and has no verifiable named photographer. For these reasons it should be a Keep on the basis that either PD-UK-Unknown or expired Crown copyright must apply. In general all photographs of the Belsen camp liberation should default to being considered of educational value, simply for the value of having as full a record as possible for public access. --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, I now spot others of Spencer, however the few alternates we have will all remain of high educational value. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reports in 1801/1/8 are post-mortem reports for camp victims. The images are of poor quality, possibly carbon copies based on the signatures looking sharp compared to the typed text. As official reports these were Crown copyright, now expired. --Fæ (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scans of pages from "Report on the medical topography and statistics of the Presidency Division of the Madras (India) Army, including Fort St. George and its dependencies, within the limits of the Supreme Court", 1842. Public domain by age and as an official army report, can be considered expired Crown copyright with no claim of publication rights possible. --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on http://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b19380574, RAMC 2046/9 has an archive creation date of 1964, however the items are described as "Miscellaneous photographs, including display re Army Dental Corps, 1936, the staff and cadets of the RAMC OCTU in Middle East Forces, Egypt, 1944, and Kenya Independence celebrations".
Delete No date is available for this photograph. Though the other dates in 2064/9 are 1936-1944, the reference to the Kenya Independence celebrations means there must be photographs dating from 1962.
These 21 images are catalogued at http://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b18890568. There are 2 volumes of drawings, relating to plans for medical dressing stations during the Battle of the Somme, 1916-1917. As military plans, they would have become property of the UK Ministry of Information and Crown copyright. Keep x 21, {{PD-UKGov}} applies. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - the whole idea of a non revocable license is that it's, well, non revocable. The ones I checked, even had a valid license in the EXIF. If there is a good explanation for an individual file why the original CC license would be invalid, create a DR for that file with a valid explanation. --Jcb (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2016 (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 Wellcome Library have corrected the source for the images to CC-BY-NC-ND after their donor requested the correction. The current licenses of CC-BY on the images are invalid and not supported by the declared copyright holder. This deletion request is raised on behalf of the the Wellcome Library based on a list supplied by them. There were 991 images found to be currently hosted on Commons when the list was reviewed. Refer to the detail and addenda of the previous nomination.
The previous deletion request has a list that is still considered active and has been worked on since the last preemptive closure. For the original correspondence with the Wellcome Library, refer to ticket:2016090610022455. I have had later correspondence with the Library since the ticket was created, but have not added to the record as the Wellcome are discussing this deletion request internally. For background on administrator Jcb's closure, refer to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_59#Admin_support_needed_for_Wellcome_Library_request, the consequences being that the maintenance category was re-added to the images after Jcb's removal and deletion of the category.
Given the majority of views in the admin noticeboard discussion, it would be inappropriate for closure of this second deletion request, or for any sysop action on these images to be taken by Jcb.
Please refer to the previous list in the last deletion request. There is no need for a second list in this deletion request, or a list to be duplicated and maintained elsewhere, and comments on specific images should continue to be added here, even though the DR is marked as closed. Any images reviewed and as a consequence having the licenses changed to public domain, should be removed from the maintenance category. At the time of this nomination there are 921 images still requiring review or deletion and these images have been templated with this second nomination. --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to WMF legal as way beyond the pay grade for COM:DR.
There are two obvious potential judgements for this group, but deciding between them is beyond COM:DR.
These are old images, obviously PD through age
A contemporary corporate body is making a claim of a non-free licence over them.
WMF's response to this is to either advocate the PD-through-age position, against the clear wishes of a corporate donor. Or else to delete the lot as non-free. That is a serious choice to make, not one we can make here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WMF legal can step in if they wish, they are not under our control. The decision that can be made, and fairly easily, in this DR is whether there can be a credible claim of publication rights for individual images. Where this is reasonable the image should be deleted, where the opposite is true, then the image licence can be replaced with a public domain one.
At the current time, nobody is claiming any 'sweat of the brow' deletion rationale, or any other claim that might end up needing WMF legal to consider take-down notices. Hopefully that will be avoided, especially considering the images are of relatively low resolution and quality rather than archive or research quality. As the images being marked as keep appear to have been published or made available to the public either well before 25 years ago, or by people or organizations that were not the RAMC, neither claims of publication rights nor sweat of the brow are likely to stand up to scrutiny.
No license has been revoked. The original license has been found to be invalid. Commons cannot host images on an invalid license, so the licenses need to be replaced or the images deleted. --Fæ (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This DR is still very poorly worded. My understanding after reading this page and that archived discussion is that 1. Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC) claims copyright for these works. They supposed to have agreed with Wellcome Library to publish these works with a CC BY 4.0 license which now turned out to be wrong. It seems we blindly trust Wellcome Library here. Why? Why our volunteers are not verifying the accuracy of the information before a bulk upload like this as it is clear that Wellcome Library is not the copyright holder? Jee15:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wellcome Library maintain internal records of archive donors and associated release documentation, these records were used to validate copyright before the original 100,000 historic medical images for public release were changed to CC-BY (before 2014 they had a NC restriction). I have never had access to the list (it is not a public record), nor been part of how the judgement was made, nor do I know whether the original donors for every released image were approached. However with such large numbers involved and a range of different types of donors to their archives, human error is a certainty rather than a possibility. The fact here is that the Wellcome are helping with housekeeping licenses where a mistake has been made, and that is something to be encouraged for Commons' long term reliability, rather than resisted or turned into a source of embarrassment. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(There is no resistance or attempt for embarrassment. Just asking some doubts as many of us can't see the private discussion (OTRS).) So my understanding is that Wellcome Library acknowledged that there is mistake in this case from their side. But in most other cases, we still can trust them. If this is the truth, I've no problem to accept. But if it repeats, we need to change our procedure to contacting the copyright holder directly and record it under OTRS as a must. Here, in this case, I support the deletion of all files affecting this mistake. Please remove the files you think that they are PD as we can't keep this discussion for a long time. Otherwise we can restore them later when we have time. Jee16:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are all files that have been identified as PD already excluded from the category? Now the DR has a valid rationale (in contrary to the previous DR), this seems to be the most important remaining question - Jcb (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment you wrote that you had filtered them out, the category still contained all 923 files. Now it's a bit less, so please tell me have all PD files been excluded from the category? (by the way, I requested to deal with the 'situation', not to hit some admin button against you. Please stop taking everything personal. I try to work with facts. You can agree or disagree with what I write, but please don't see everything as a personal vendetta against you.) Jcb (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I responded with a statement of fact. Please close the thread you created on COM:AN which is intended for requests for "administrator's intervention", before creating secondary discussions that appear increasingly pointy.
At the current time there is no more to say here, apart from quoting the nomination which you have described as a valid rationale, "Any images reviewed and as a consequence having the licenses changed to public domain, should be removed from the maintenance category." --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No contradiction, the numbers in the maintenance category will reduce as long as public domain licences replace the incorrect CC-BY licenses during the life of this deletion request. This is exactly what the nomination text means with "Any images reviewed and as a consequence having the licenses changed to public domain, should be removed from the maintenance category." Deletion requests are not resolved before they are opened, that is not how a consensus on Commons works.
With regard to the examples, I do not direct the edits of Slowking4, Revent or yourself. As you used your sysop tools to block my accounts for attempting to re-add the maintenance category because you stated it was disruptive diff, it is hardly a surprize that it was not maintained, no doubt there are contributors that might help, were there not on-going threats of administrator action.
If you keep on insisting that we cannot have community discussion using the open process of deletion requests, then the outcome must be to delete all the images per COM:PRP and COM:L, as the current stated license of CC-BY is incorrect and misleads reusers. --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In other news, it is Monday, so it’s Fæ bashing day. Or is that Tuesday? Ah, silly me: Everyday is Fæ bashing day, and every reason is a good excuse, even something so ludicrous as the implicit accusation that Fæ wants PD content to be deleted. Where were these zealous defenders when serial vandal Fastily wreacked havoc in Commons with his admin-bit powered deletionist agenda? Where are they when everybody and their dog can have all kinds of Commons content deleted (incl. PD-old items) on a whim just by filing a DR and then “win the lotto” when it’s closed by a deletionist admin? -- Tuválkin✉✇12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it is certainly true that a CC license is not revocable, this is not that simple.
OTRS ticket:2016090610022455 is ambiguous. It says "We have had to change the rights on a group of images and consequently they need to be removed from Wikimedia Commons.
That could mean either of two things:
The RAMC has changed its mind about the licensing of the images and, although they authorized the CC-BY license originally, now they want to use a CC-BY-NC-ND, or
The original document transferring the images authorized only a CC-BY-NC-ND license and the Wellcome Library erred in using the CC-BY license.
If the first is the case, then the Wellcome and the RAMC need to be reminded that a CC-BY license is irrevocable -- when you issue an irrevocable license, you had better be careful, because you can't take it back for any reason.
If the second is correct, then the Wellcome had no right to use the CC-BY license and therefore it is not valid. If Smith issues an irrevocable license to works whose copyright belongs to Brown, such a license is valid only if Brown has authorized it. In that case the question of irrevocability doesn't come up because the license wasn't valid from the start.
Therefore, in order to close this, we need to ask the Wellcome which situation is correct. Fæ, you are the contact person here -- please do that and add the response to the OTRS ticket. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Please explain more precisely why Wellcome wants to delete the Public Accounts of Canada, digitized in the collection of the Library and archives of Canada from a copy of the University of Toronto. Or why Wellcome even cares about that file with which apparently it has nothing to do? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination begins with the statement "Nominated from a list provided by the Wellcome Library on behalf of the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC)". But one wonders how the RAMC or Wellcome made that list. Wellcome's claim that the RAMC claims a copyright, for example, on "File:Artemisia annua, Artemisinin, ACTs and Malaria Control in Africa- Tradition, Science and Public Policy.pdf" and "File:Audtor General report Canada1946.pdf" is not believable. (And those two examples are just from looking at files beginning with "A" in the list.) Apparently, someone merely wrote the word "Wellcome" in a search engine and copied the result including everything that contains that word, even if it never had anything to do with images and even less with the RAMC. This list is abusive. This would suggest a "keep" for the nomination. And Wellcome or someone else should make a list that could be taken seriously. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll be trying to work on this over the next few days. It seems likely that the non-PD RAMC collection requires deletion. There are still a few files that are clearly PD, so this will take some time and thought. I'll leave the ones I'm unsure of in the category, and add {{Disputed}} just to show I've touched them. Storkk (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Storkk, I think that is premature -- see my comment of October 15 above. We need to know the reason behind this change in license, because, as I explain above, one possibility is valid and the other is not, and the OTRS message is ambiguous. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: There is a comment in the OTRS ticket amounting to "of course some should be kept since they are actually CC-BY-SA" which leads me to believe that it is likely that the error was Wellcome's. In either case, absent clarification (and none seems forthcoming), I believe we have to acquiesce to Wellcome's request and delete on PRP grounds. Storkk (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why acquiesce to a request that may or may not be valid? Clarifying the situation will probably embarrass someone, but we're looking both at a lot of work in doing the necessary sorting and deletion and at a loss of perhaps 1,000 images. I agree that PRP would require deletion if there were no way to clarify the situation, but I don't believe it requires us to take action on a request that is ambiguous and maybe invalid when it should be very easy for Wellcome to fully explain the situation. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your stance, I see four possibilities:
the images were actually CC-BY and Wellcome will tell us this
they are actually NC-ND and Wellcome will tell us (in their view, again)
they are CC-BY and we have no further clarification
they are NC-ND and no further clarification
Case #1 is the only possibility that allows us to keep and distribute RAMC's copyrighted work, and as the months wear on post their request for us to delete the images, it seems optimistic at best. Storkk (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree with your classification. "Actually NC-ND" is not meaningful to me. The question is the terms of RAMC's original donation. If it was NC-ND, then Wellcome's putting a CC-BY tag on the images was invalid, and we indeed must delete. If, on the other hand, RAMC changed their mind, then Wellcome's use of CC-BY was valid and irrevocable. For me, that's the question, and it is one that Wellcome can and should answer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually" meaning the original terms. I agree that we wouldn't need to delete if the original terms were CC-BY and Wellcome clarifies this. Failing the first is a legal obligation to delete, failing the second is a procedural obligation to delete under PRP. I see clarification as necessary to keep, rather than to delete. Storkk (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Case #1 is where it started, see the CC-BY 4.0 license in the EXIF. The most likely is that they are trying to revoke their initial release, which is not allowed. Until we receive a very good explanation to the contrary, we have enough reason to assume the initial license to be valid. With this DR, Fae seems to be acting on behalf of Wellcome rather than as a member of the Commons community, which would be a problematic conflict of interests. Jcb (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wellcome's EXIF is irrelevant if Wellcome mistakenly released RAMC's images under an incorrect license, because Wellcome applied the EXIF. Storkk (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regardless of that, since Wellcome is the copyright holder of zero of the images here, Wellcome can neither license the files nor revoke their nonexistent license. They are simply passing on RAMC's license. Storkk (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they did their release in error, they are responsible for that, not we. It's their responsibility to come up with a proper explanation. Without such an explanation, I see no need to delete these files. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wellcome made a mistake, one which impacts a third party's copyrights. They have tried to mitigate that mistake by contacting us to remove the files... while I agree that it would be fantastic to have a detailed summary of what exactly happened, I'm not sure we are in a position to demand that. We are quite possibly (and I'd say quite probably) currently releasing a third party's copyrighted work under a more permissive license than they ever released it as. And we have been told about it. Perhaps we can bar Wellcome images in the future that aren't PD or that they didn't create... but that's a different discussion. In any case, there are still a large number of clearly PD works in the maintenance category. For now, I'll work on those, since there is obviously no consensus to delete among admins at the moment. I would respectfully suggest that any admin that closes this DR as keep has a responsibility to reach out to Wellcome for an explanation and re-nominate depending on the answer, because their contacting us in August regarding this mistake has IMO shifted the onus substantially. Storkk (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Jameslwoodward and Jcb: could you explain exactly what you see is the difference between this case and a regular case of Flickrwashing? The only differences that I see are that: a) they contacted us to report the error and b) they are a significant GLAM source ... which, while it should not gain them any procedural favors or exceptions, neither should it somehow prejudice us the other way... I guess what I'm asking is why are you requiring them to <hyperbole ahead!> grovel </hyperbole> about their mistake, when we all routinely delete Flickrwashed images without a second thought? Perhaps I'm being shortsighted, but I don't see it. Storkk (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the OTRS message is ambiguous. I don't need anyone to grovel, but, it may be their mistake or RAMC's change of mind. To repeat, the message says:
"We have had to change the rights on a group of images and consequently they need to be removed from Wikimedia Commons."
That could mean either of two things:
1)The RAMC has changed its mind about the licensing of the images and, although they authorized the CC-BY license originally, now they want to use a CC-BY-NC-ND, or
2)The original document transferring the images authorized only a CC-BY-NC-ND license and the Wellcome Library erred in using the CC-BY license.
In the first case, we keep them because the RAMC can't change its mind on an irrevocable license. In the second, the CC-BY license was invalid, so we must delete. Most of the discussion above assumes that the Wellcome made a mistake, and while that may well be correct, the message doesn't say that. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did understand your point (see my further breakdown into four distinct situations above), I just seem to disagree both with your apparent assessment of the relative likelihood of the possibilities and with what our default position should be. Storkk (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped working on them after reaching the impasse with Jcb and Jim above. I still think we should delete many of them, since I think it vanishingly unlikely that we will get clarification, and absent clarification specifically that RAMC are trying to change a validly applied license, I think this should be treated similarly to Flickrwashing. However after I stated I would not delete over their objections, it seemed like a huge waste of time to work on them just to fiddle with their categories. Storkk (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should simply leave them. As I have said several times, I think it is entirely reasonable to insist on clarity when we are asked to delete images that had a CC-BY license on them. If Wellcome comes back again with a request to delete, we should ask them to clarify the reason as discussed above. If they don't come back, we leave them. Since Ellin is not involved, perhaps she would be good enough to make a decision. If she decides to delete, I would be happy to help with the effort. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is closed as keep, we should probably consider restoring those I already deleted (I think all the redlinks above are mine) for consistency. I still think it is a mistake, so do not wish to do it myself. Storkk (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2016 (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.
Likely unintentional copyright violation by new user - logo of a United States Community College is unlikely to be uploader's "own work" to release under CC-SA, and is too complex for COM:TOO. BigrTex (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2016 (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 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.
Possible copyright violation by inexperienced uploader. Appears to be a crop of an image that is credited to "GOODWILL OF DELAWARE AND DELAWARE COUNTY" when it appears elsewhere online the previous Spring. BigrTex (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2016 (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.
Comment. Likely uploaded by someone from the municipality in the course of the invitation by Wikimedia France. Not surprising to see two cameras for two photos taken for the municipality and at 4 years of distance. Mairie de St Alban des Villards is a photo of their municipal building. It doesn't seem to be anywhere else on the internet. Torrent du Merlet et Rhododendrons is in their municipal bulletin [7] and doesn't seem to be anywhere else. No special reason to think they're copyvios. It would be better to first talk to them and tell them if anything is needed and what exactly. Maybe a mail from the municipality to tell that the account is from them? Or something else? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2016 (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: Photos from Tasnim News Agency are used on other articles here on Wikipedia, so I thought it would be good for that article too. The copyright thing on the bottom of the page links to this website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
So I guess if they lied, the picture should be removed? I personally could not find the image anywhere else. If this is so, it would be helpful if another editor could insist in finding an image that we can legally use. Beejsterb (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2016 (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.
Добрый день! Я не уверен, что правильно применил лицензию. Наверное не смог разобраться. Мне казалось, что применённая лицензия снимает все ограничения так как снимок был сделан более 70 лет назад и автор не известен. Если возможно поправте и сохраните фото для использовании в статье "Arkadi Iljitsch Ostaschew" в немецкоязычной Википедии. Mixrunya (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2016 (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 image claims own work but in description says "already get approval from owner". This means that there is an owner of this image from whom we do not have COM:OTRS, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2016 (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 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.
Why would the license be valid? Automobile Italia has added lots of images that they clearly did not produce; I do not expect this image to be different. Per COM:PRP, if there is significant doubt about copyright, it should be deleted. Sunmist (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2016 (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.
Comment I hereby withdraw this deletion request. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete all. Rossmr-cl is indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts and uploading copyvios after warnings. Taivo (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep - it's highly doubtful whether that file should have been deleted, the artwork in the middle of the roundabout seems COM:DM to me. And within this collage it's certainly DM. Jcb (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose for two reasons - is there any pic of the insect species on Commons? The insect was in motion and hence clarity was not 100%. I will support deletion if somebody comes with a better pic of this species insect. --Muzammil (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Question J.P.D. Hewitt does not appear in the IWM collections or anywhere obvious as a war artist. However this drawing by him when resident in hospital in 1916, has been republished in a couple of books in recent times as an important early depiction of shell shock. The death date of the artist is not in the Wellcome catalogue. --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
--Fæ (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Bilel_Dz_Ask_Me_1_%D8%B4%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A9_%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%86%D9%8A.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Bilel_Dz_Ask_Me_%D8%B4%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A9_%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%86%D9%8A.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
%27_Wellcome_L0046117.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0031904.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0074440.jpg){kind=link}
_Home_Counties_..._Wellcome_L0063410.jpg){kind=link}
_Home_Counties_..._Wellcome_L0063412.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0027063.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0029557.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0029558.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0067873.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0067874.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0067875.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0024172.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0024173.jpg){kind=link}
._Wellcome_L0027775.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0034542.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0034543.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0034544.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0029554.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0029555.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0024148.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0037307.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029671.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029672.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029673.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029674.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029675.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029676.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029677.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029678.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029679.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029680.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029681.jpg){kind=link}
_West_Lancashire_Wellcome_L0029682.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0020270.jpg){kind=link}
;_RAMC_1242_Wellcome_L0021202.jpg){kind=link}
;_RAMC_1242_Wellcome_L0021203.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0048339.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0048341.jpg){kind=link}
_2_Wellcome_L0048346.jpg){kind=link}
_3_Wellcome_L0048347.jpg){kind=link}
_4_Wellcome_L0048348.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0048345.jpg){kind=link}
_-_A_J_Smith_%26_J_H_Plumridge_Wellcome_L0046446.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0064612.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0031912.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0031917.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0074441.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}