Commons:Deletion requests/File:Humor eradication drive.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 nuns with guns picture is very well known and old but unfortunately just how old or even country of origin is unknown so there is no way to tell it is PD. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have you searched through commons for nuns with guns ? Penyulap
here you go, it's PD. Penyulap 23:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated that one for deletion too. But I promise I'm not trying to eradicate humor from Wikipedia. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No information about source, so no way to know whether it's PD or still copyrighted. If anyone wants to do some digging, I found a couple possible leads. It may have been included in the Nuns Having Fun calendar, possibly in 2003 or 2004, and so the calendar publisher or authors might have some information about the original source. Also, there's a comment on this blog post from someone who claims to know about the origin of the photo (and to have known the nuns in it). Based on what we have here and what I've found so far, I have to say delete, but if someone wants to do some digging and can find out more information about the original source, I can certainly reconsider. cmadler (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's better than I found, and may yield some fruit. Assuming the poster who said these nuns were her teachers is currently an adult, the image is old enough to be from the time when copyright notices were required in the US. That's going to be the best plan of attack to see if this is PD, assuming we can find the original publication. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corbis has this [1] which is most certainly in the same series of images, but they do not have this particular image. Again, purely circumstantial, the proliferation of this image strongly suggests PD (and also the fact that Corbis isn't claiming it, because they'll claim stuff even if it is PD) but it's going to take more research to find out. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking about this some more, and after searching Google archives of old newspapers, unless this can be proven to be contemporaneously published, it must be considered either unpublished, or published on the Internet (after 2002 is the date in the copyright law) which makes it copyrighted until 120 years after creation. 1957+120+the end of the year=January 1, 2078. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per nom. Penyulap 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom and cmadler Ezarateesteban 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]