Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bayview Finch looking east, 1960.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Kept per Floydian. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2014 (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.
Copyright restored on URAA date. Not PD in U.S. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Move back to wikipedia with FUR - Not under copyright by the agency that created the photo, tired of my uploads getting moved here by a bot and deleted under bloody URAA when the photo is under a copyright in its home country that sets explicit limits to the copyright terms. - Floydian (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- But you uploaded it here yourself. Anyways, you can reupload it to Wikipedia with a FUR yourself anytime you want. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 21:13, 25 May 2013 (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.
NOT PD URAA, Considered Non-free on English Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? URAA doesn't apply here, forgotten already or just digging up old worms? Besides, I thought Common's was disavowing of the URAA per a lengthy discussion? Even so, this is PD-Canada-Crown. Copyright tag already indicated this. Please actually spend half a second of your time to investigate an image before going slap-happy with deletion tags. - Floydian (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Floydian (although Floydian, please stay civil). This isn't Crown copyright (municipalities are not the Crown) (in fact, if it was Crown copyright we'd have to prove a publication date), but copyright has otherwise expired in Canada.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete I do not understand, why the photo is in public domain, which part of license PD-Canada applies. Point 1 does not apply, because as Skeezix says, this is not Crown copyright. Point 2 does not apply, because it was not created prior to January 1, 1949. Point 3 does not apply, because probably the author was living 50 years ago. Taivo (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Work for hire. At that time, the Canadian Copyright Act treated the "author" of the image as the entity which paid to have the photo created. Copyright persists for 50 years from creation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Copyright law concerning "corporations" (of which The City of Toronto is considered). To quote: "Photographs taken on/after 1 Jan. 1949 - [author is:] Employer if made in the course of employment - [term of copyright is:] Life of 'author' + 50 UNLESS The 'author' is a corporation in which the majority of voting shares are not owned by a natural person who is the author of the photograph, in which case the term is 50 years from the making of the photograph." I was always under the impression that municipalities were held under the same copyright as the province... apparently not, but regardless the copyright has expired. - Floydian (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept per Floydian. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
