June 23
edit
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. De728631 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Iraqvillagebaghdeda7.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Low quality with no EXIF data. Kathovo talk 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Iraqvillagebaghdeda9.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Low quality with no EXIF data. Kathovo talk 15:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Nomination withdrawn. Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is tagged as Being a Government work, but I don't think that's accurate. The Southern Railway was a commerical organisation, and the transfer of railway undertakings to the BTC and then BRB, would not have affected the copyright status.
There may well be grounds for a fair use claim though based on the historical importance of the image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fair use" is not something that's clearly recognised under UK copyright. A better claim would be {{PD-UK-unknown}}, where it's old enough that an unknown photographer (i.e. an anonymous employee) would be acceptable. Note in particular that under UK law, copyright there would reside with the employer, not the employee. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure about the employer / employee relation? Commons:Copyright rules by territory says that in the UK "the author must be a natural person and cannot be a corporation." De728631 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't quite see the section you refer to. 'Author' isn't a massive topic in UK copyright, because we're not France, so our copyright developed as safeguarding the rights of publishers (in many ways acting against authors!) as a commercial venture, not the Code Napoleonic notion that starts by protecting the moral rights of an author. UK copyright instead has a strong notion of 'work for hire' (and this is the term to start searching for) where the copyright belongs immediately to an employer or commissioning client. There could still be a need to track authors for death dates, but publication date and rights ownership is generally the main issue, not personal authorship. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom has a better overview. The phrase in question can be found in the section "United Kingdom Overview". There is a brief paragraph on publication rights but unfortunately they don't elaborate on works for hire. Anyhow, I think we're best off with using this file under a fair use claim. De728631 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The author is always the natural person who creates a work, and this is the person on which a 70 years p.m.a. term is based. However, being the author isn't the same thing as being the initial copyright holder, especially not in a country with corporate copyright like the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom has a better overview. The phrase in question can be found in the section "United Kingdom Overview". There is a brief paragraph on publication rights but unfortunately they don't elaborate on works for hire. Anyhow, I think we're best off with using this file under a fair use claim. De728631 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't quite see the section you refer to. 'Author' isn't a massive topic in UK copyright, because we're not France, so our copyright developed as safeguarding the rights of publishers (in many ways acting against authors!) as a commercial venture, not the Code Napoleonic notion that starts by protecting the moral rights of an author. UK copyright instead has a strong notion of 'work for hire' (and this is the term to start searching for) where the copyright belongs immediately to an employer or commissioning client. There could still be a need to track authors for death dates, but publication date and rights ownership is generally the main issue, not personal authorship. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure about the employer / employee relation? Commons:Copyright rules by territory says that in the UK "the author must be a natural person and cannot be a corporation." De728631 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The UK equivalent to fair use would be fair dealing 'for the purposes of study or critical analysis' if I recall correctly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn as PUF per Andy Dingley, Will tag as wrong license..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that this was created by the government. As it was created after 1925, it is copyrighted in the United States per URAA. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn, file transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nordiccouncil.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The current license claims that the logo has been released into the public domain by its copyright holder, but there's no indication that this is true. Instead, the Nordic Council writes that "the logo may not be copied or used by outsiders." [1]. The question is whether the design is original enough for copyright, and I think it passes the threshold of originality. Additionally there are statements here that the logo is protected by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property Art. 6 ter. This article rules that emblems of intergovernmental organizations must not be used "without authorization by the competent authorities, either as trademarks or as elements of trademarks, of armorial bearings, flags" and so on. For these reasons I think we should convert this to a fair use item. On a side-note, there's a related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Nordic Council.svg. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion at Commons has been closed as keep since the image doesn't seem to pass the threshold of originality. Therefore I'm withdrawing this nomination and will transfer the image to Commons. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Anoma Fonseka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This was deleted on Commons because it is apparently nonfree (see commons:File:Anoma Fonseka.jpg). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.