User:Felix QW/XfD log

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is a log of all

Twinkle
's XfD module.

If you no longer wish to keep this log, you can turn it off using the

CSD U1
.

January 2022

  1. AfD; notified Danwills (talk · contribs
    ) 18:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  2. CBM (talk · contribs
    ) 10:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

  1. AfD; notified RainerBlome (talk · contribs
    ) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. AfD; notified Linas (talk · contribs
    ) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Reason: The article consists of unsourced proofs which are not encyclopedic in content. They are not notable as proofs, and they are also not illustrative of any particular technique covered in an article. Since Wikipedia is neither textbook nor research paper, there is no need to justify claims made in articles with calculations such as these.

May 2022

  1. RfD; Target: Irish National Liberation Army
    (notified) 10:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

  1. TfD
    10:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Reason: Redundant with template:Being merged (which can take a dir=from parameter). I have used this after closing merge discussions for its more specific text, but it seems pointless without a "Merging to" partner template that mirrors the text; after all, the guidance of the template would be much more pertinent to editors looking at the source page rather than the target page.
      So if there is no support for adopting the text of this template for both directions, I would suggest turning this into an alias for template:Being merged with the dir=from parameter.

December 2022

  1. FfD; notified Von Sprat (talk · contribs
    ) 17:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. FfD; notified Stealthwarrior (talk · contribs
    ) 21:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. FfD; notified Weiterbewegung (talk · contribs
    ) 11:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. FfD; notified DCTT (talk · contribs
    ) 19:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Reason: I am nominating this file for discussion due the 2014 deletion on Commons on the ground of it being unfree in the USA.
      This would also be sufficient reason not to have it here without a fair use rationale either. However, I am unclear about the reasoning behind the deletion back then. c:commons:China, which has recently been updated, is quite clear that copyright on photos expired 50 years after publication, regardless of whether copyright was held by a natural person or not. So it seems to me that the question is not who held the copyright but rather whether we believe that the image was a) first published in China and b) published before 1946.
  5. FfD; notified ReverendLogos (talk · contribs
    ) 08:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  6. FfD; notified Glenncando (talk · contribs
    ) 10:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  7. FfD; notified Jack1956 (talk · contribs
    ) 10:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Reason: The file has been tagged as published before 1927, but I see no evidence for this. The given source is from 1998 and it does not look like a formal studio portrait to me.
  8. FfD; notified Walter Cronkitis (talk · contribs
    ) 15:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Reason: The summary calls it a publicity shot, suggesting that it is not the uploader's own work.
      However, it is at high resolution and comes with full EXIF data, which may indicate that it is the uploader's own work after all.
      What do others think?
  9. FfD; notified Ashik per (talk · contribs
    ) 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Reason: Own work claim has previously been flagged as having potentially a license issue; it is of reasonably low resolution and without EXIF data.
  10. FfD; notified Materialscientist (talk · contribs
    ) 10:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Reason: This file cannot be in the public domain in the US since Del Fontaine only moved to the UK and started his liaison with Meek in 1931, which would mean that the image was still copyrighted in the UK in 1996 and therefore per
      WP:URAA
      in the US until 2027 at the earliest.
  11. FfD; notified Jbowd01 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Reason: This map was licensed as being ineligible for copyright as "simple geometry", but I would consider the mapping decisions to involve sufficient creativity to push this beyond the threshold of originality even in the US. It is certainly above the very low threshold for Australia and since it could be redrawn independently I see no good case to be made for fair use.

January 2023

  1. FfD; notified Leonard Griffin (talk · contribs
    ) 12:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: While there is a license covering the UK, there is no US license, and I do not see which could apply.
  2. FfD; notified Therkonsaj (talk · contribs
    ) 13:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. FfD; notified GrahamHardy (talk · contribs
    ) 15:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. FfD; notified Arimasa (talk · contribs
    ) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The image was first published in Japan in 1938, so from the perspective of the URAA cut-off date of 1996 Japanese copyright law is relevant.
      As we know the author, a "correspondent Hayashi" from Ahasi Shimbun newspaper, the image would be PD in the US only if the correspondent had died before 1946, which is possible, but by no means clear.
  5. FfD; notified NintendoFan (talk · contribs
    ) 16:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Derivative work of the illustrations on the tokens. I would say that at least the top left one is above the threshold of originality, but as the two bottom row ones are clearly not, one could crop the image accordingly.
  6. FfD; notified Amuradyan12 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Derivative of the modern artwork depicted, and orphaned.
  7. FfD; notified Ilya1166 (talk · contribs
    ) 14:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Unclear publication history and authorship make it difficult to ascertain whether the image was in the public domain in Russia at the restoration date, January 1st 1996. Unused.
  8. FfD; notified Ilya1166 (talk · contribs
    ) 14:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The complete lack of publication history make it difficult to determine the source country and the copyright situation in the source country at the URAA restoration date. Unused.
  9. FfD; notified Ashik per (talk · contribs
    ) 16:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: This seemingly professional photo without camera EXIF data has been flagged as a disputed license years ago, and the user has received several previous warnings for copyright infringement. As there does not seem to any web source, it does not appear speedy-able to me.
  10. FfD; notified HarZim (talk · contribs
    ) 16:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  11. FfD; notified Garyvines (talk · contribs
    ) 16:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: While I doubt that the image is PD in Australia, since the photographer not being "publicly known" does not make an image anonymous, it is certainly not PD in the US as it would in any case have been copyrighted in Australia in 1996.
  12. FfD; notified Cordyceps-Zombie (talk · contribs
    ) 16:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The reason for the claim of public domain status in Iraq is unclear to me. I couldn't trace any use of the flag in the past which would suggest that it had been in use long enough to match any of the clauses in the PD-Iraq template.
  13. FfD; notified Zscout370 (talk · contribs
    ) 17:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  14. FfD; notified Bsskchaitanya (talk · contribs
    ) 23:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  15. FfD; notified Toweli (talk · contribs
    ) 17:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: This file is missing a US licensing template, and the only possibility I could imagine for this to be PD in the US is for the image to have been published before 1946, which would make it PD in China at the URAA restoration date.
      The subject would have been 52 in 1946 and died in 1968.
  16. FfD; notified DDima (talk · contribs
    ) 11:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Although the location of first publication is unknown, it would still be copyrighted in Russia and Ukraine in 1996 as a post-1946 photograph. This means that it is still copyrighted in the US per URAA restoration.
  17. FfD; notified LooneyTraceYT (talk · contribs
    ) 14:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  18. FfD; notified Phanisaladi (talk · contribs
    ) 15:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Although the uploader claims this photo to be their own work, they also state "georgepeta" as a source and Facebook as prior publication.
      Since they already have some copyright warnings on their userpage, I prefer to open this up to discussion.
  19. FfD; notified Botev1921 (talk · contribs
    ) 15:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Deleted at Commons as a copyright violation. Non-free use at its current articles is debatable.
  20. FfD; notified DavidGomberg (talk · contribs
    ) 16:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  21. FfD; notified Lglukgl (talk · contribs
    ) 16:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  22. FfD; notified HughJLF (talk · contribs
    ) 16:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Image can be found at [4], and the date of 1923 given there seems very reasonable given the films advertised. However, it is not a formal image and we have no indication of author or publication history to definitively confirm its copyright status in either the UK or the US.
  23. FfD; notified CharlieHuang (talk · contribs
    ) 21:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  24. FfD; notified Woollard01 (talk · contribs
    ) 10:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Unclear how this photograph should be PD in the US. It was taken less than 95 years ago and was certainly copyrighted in the UK at the URAA restoration date in 1996.
  25. FfD; notified Woollard01 (talk · contribs
    ) 10:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Unclear how this photograph should be PD in the US. It was taken less than 95 years ago and was certainly copyrighted in the UK at the URAA restoration date in 1996.
  26. FfD; notified Dicklyon (talk · contribs
    ) 11:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: This drawing is taken from a patent application by Oskar Heil. Although it is taken from the British patent filing, the original patent application was filed in Germany in 1934, and we can only presume that this is where the drawing was first published. In either case, as the author died in 1994, copyright would still apply in both the UK and Germany, and thus by URAA restoration also in the US.
      The diagram is certainly above the UK threshold of originality, and I would guess that it is also above the German and US thresholds.
  27. FfD; notified BlackJack (talk · contribs
    ) 11:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The image is missing source information, so it is difficult to tell whether it is in the PD in the UK. However, it is certainly still copyrighted in the US per URAA restorations, since UK copyright would have certainly run into the 2000s.
  28. FfD; notified WillShuck (talk · contribs
    ) 21:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
  29. FfD; notified Vectorebus (talk · contribs
    ) 22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: There has been disagreement in the past on whether this logo of an international organisation headquartered in Brussels meets the threshold of originality, so I prefer to put it out there at FFD. To me it seems like a case of
      PD-Textlogo
      .
  30. FfD; notified Brad94 (talk · contribs
    ) 09:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

  1. FfD; notified Bzuk (talk · contribs
    ) 22:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. FfD; notified Vizjim (talk · contribs
    ) 11:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  3. FfD; notified Jack1956 (talk · contribs
    ) 12:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  4. FfD; notified Jack1956 (talk · contribs
    ) 12:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Not a formal studio portrait, and no trace of the publication history. Could well be copyrighted in the US until 1923, but may qualify as fair use unless an undoubtably free image emerges.
  5. FfD; notified GrahamHardy (talk · contribs
    ) 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  6. FfD; notified Zbase4 (talk · contribs
    ) 13:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is no indication of the date of this orphaned photograph. If it was taken in Israel after 1945, it would still be copyright protected in the US until 95 years after publication due to URAA restoration in 1996.
  7. FfD; notified Zbase4 (talk · contribs
    ) 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: This image, taken from the Knesset page file is unlikely to be PD in the US as the subject only emigrated to Israel in 1957 and thus Israeli copyright would not have expired before 2008.
      It is also ineligible for non-free use as alternatives exist on Commons.
  8. FfD; notified Zbase4 (talk · contribs
    ) 15:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is no indication of the date of this orphaned photograph, whose subject died in 1996. If it was taken in Israel after 1945, it would still be copyright protected in the US until 95 years after publication due to URAA restoration in 1996.
  9. FfD; notified Zbase4 (talk · contribs
    ) 10:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
  10. FfD; notified Zbase4 (talk · contribs
    ) 10:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is no indication of the date of this orphaned photograph, whose subject died in 1991. If it was taken in Israel after 1945, it would still be copyright protected in the US until 95 years after publication due to URAA restoration in 1996.
  11. FfD; notified Zbase4 (talk · contribs
    ) 13:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is no indication of the date of this photograph, whose subject died in 1995. If it was taken in Israel after 1945, it would still be copyright protected in the US until 95 years after publication due to URAA restoration in 1996.
      The alternatives in
      WP:FREER
      and deleting this one.

March 2023

  1. FfD; notified HRIN (talk · contribs
    ) 19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. FfD; notified Simon Harley (talk · contribs
    ) 20:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned image not in the public domain in the US until 2034, since its UK copyright will have expired 2009 at the earliest.
  3. FfD; notified Sally of Kent (talk · contribs
    ) 20:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: By the standards of c:COM:FOP UK, this seems to me to be a 2D graphic work, rather than work of artistic craftsmanship. Therefore this seems to be outside of UK freedom of panorama provisions and require permission from the author(s) of the mosaic.
  4. FfD; notified The Anonymous Earthling (talk · contribs
    ) 20:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The own work claim with its accompanying license seems to have been made in error. However, I would like the opinion of those more versed in matters of non-free use on Wikipedia to assess the non-free use claim also attached to the image.
  5. RM
    16:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

  1. FfD; notified Rodolph (talk · contribs
    ) 15:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  2. FfD; notified Lord Cornwallis (talk · contribs
    ) 16:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: There are a couple of issues here. Firstly, it doesn't seem to be a film poster, as the FUR states, but rather a voucher/coupon or invitation card to a specific promotional showing of the film at a trade show.
      Secondly though, since UK copyright will have expired in 2011 for an anonymous 1940 work, if the overall document is below the US threshold of originality, it could be moved to Commons.
      Commons generally seems to see the WB logo as below the threshold, so it will likely depend on whether the formulaic invitation text is sufficient to be copyrighted as a textual work.
  3. FfD; notified BlackJack (talk · contribs
    ) 18:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  4. FfD; notified Walls of Jericho (talk · contribs
    ) 18:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  5. FfD; notified Shn606 (talk · contribs
    ) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  6. FfD; notified ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs
    ) 20:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: US Copyright will have been restored by the
      URAA
      , so not in the US public domain until 2029.
  7. FfD; notified AMBerry (talk · contribs
    ) 20:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: US copyright will have been restored by the
      URAA
      , making this image non-free until 2028.
  8. FfD; notified AMBerry (talk · contribs
    ) 20:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  9. FfD; notified ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs
    ) 21:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  10. FfD; notified Mdnavman (talk · contribs
    ) 21:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: US copyright will have been restored in 1996 by the
      URAA
      , so it is still in copyright until January 1, 2025.
  11. FfD; notified Simon Harley (talk · contribs
    ) 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: US copyright will have been restored by the
      URAA
      in 1996, so this image will still be in copyright in the US until 2035. Unused.
  12. FfD; notified Jpg1954 (talk · contribs
    ) 20:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: This image may be PD in the UK, but it would not be PD in the US until 95 years after publication in 1935 since its UK copyright term extended beyond 1996.
      It is currently in use on
      WP:FREER
      .
  13. FfD; notified Simon Harley (talk · contribs
    ) 21:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Since British copyright expired after 1996, the URAA restored US copyright in this image. Its current use is with a list including the subject, so I doubt whether it would qualify for non-free use.
  14. FfD; notified Materialscientist (talk · contribs
    ) 07:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Challenging "Keep local": The argument presented, that it may no be PD in the US, is confusing for two reasons. Firstly, it is PD in the US as a Swedish simple photograph created before 1969, since it was not copyrighted in Sweden on the URAA date, January 1st 1996, and secondly, if it were copyrighted in the US, we could not keep it here either, since the English Wikipedia only goes by US copyright.
  15. FfD; notified G2bambino (talk · contribs
    ) 09:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: It is unclear that this image, taken on board a Canadian ship on tour to Stockholm, has indeed first been published in Sweden.
      No contemporary source has been identified.
      If it were a photo taken by a Canadian Crown official,
      then its copyright term would have lapsed in 2006, and there is consensus that URAA restoration is irrelevant for Canadian Crown works,
  16. FfD; notified Soman (talk · contribs
    ) 10:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  17. FfD; notified Tavrian (talk · contribs
    ) 12:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is nothing in the sources given to confirm that this image has indeed been first published in the Ukraine. If it was first published in Russia, then even anonymous post-1946 works would be copyrighted in the US since URAA restoration.
  18. FfD; notified Irpen (talk · contribs
    ) 12:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: As an image of around 1930 credited to a specific person, there is no reason to assume that it would be PD in Ukraine either now or at the URAA restoration date, January 1st, 1996. This would make it copyrighted in the US until 95 years after publication and in Ukraine for presumably much longer.
  19. FfD; notified Pavlo Shopin (talk · contribs
    ) 12:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Low resolution image, for which TinEye gives a 2008 hit from iki.lnpu.edu.ua/, the university's own webpage.
      I am not speedy-ing it as a copyvio since it has been on Wikipedia since 2007.
  20. FfD; notified Pavlo Shopin (talk · contribs
    ) 12:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Low resolution image, for which TinEye gives a 2008 hit from iki.lnpu.edu.ua/, the university's own webpage.
      I am not speedy-ing it as a copyvio since it has been on Wikipedia since 2007.
  21. FfD; notified DDima (talk · contribs
    ) 13:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: This image, presumably from 1936-8, relies on anonymous authorship for public domain status in both Ukraine and the US, but has no source information whatsoever to verify whether authorship is truly anonymous.
  22. FfD; notified Doctorhawkes (talk · contribs
    ) 19:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  23. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 20:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

  1. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: American copyright was restored by the
      URAA
      in 1996 as Australian copyright expired only in 2003; the image is unused.
  2. FfD; notified Archifile (talk · contribs
    ) 16:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: American copyright restored by the
      URAA
      in 1996, as Australian copyright did not expire until 2005.
      I have replaced the two occurrences with a modern photograph of the same subject from Commons.
  3. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: American copyright has been restored by the
      URAA
      in 1996, since Australian copyright did not expire until 2005.
      Used on the subject's page, who seems to be still alive by the information given there. Also in use on a list page.
      In my experience, neither of these uses are usually considered eligible for a non-free image.

August 2023

  1. RfD; Target: Gottfried Vopelius (notified); notified Francis Schonken (talk · contribs
    ) 06:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

  1. FfD; notified Cinemaniac86 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  2. Iridescent (talk · contribs
    ) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  3. FfD; notified Setzor (talk · contribs
    ) 19:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: South African copyright will not have expired before 2003, late enough for the image to have been caught up in URAA restorations. So it seems it will be copyrighted in the US until 2047.
  4. FfD; notified Renamed user 12euhfu3hf98238h98923h894 (talk · contribs
    ) 19:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The cartoon is claimed to be in the public domain since its copyright was not renewed, but as it is a British production first published there, that is not relevant. While I do not know the death date of creator George Moreno Jr. the cartoon is unlikely to be in the public domain in the UK and is certainly still in copyright in the US until 2043.
  5. FfD; notified IDangerMouse (talk · contribs
    ) 18:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The image has a non-free use rationale for use as identifying image on the subject's article, but it is actually used in the article body, and does not seem to be subject of critical commentary. It seems that the uploader has a physical copy, but it is unclear to me whether he claims to be the copyright holder and intends to put it under a non-commercial license.
  6. FfD; notified Celtus (talk · contribs
    ) 21:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned, and according to the source the NYPL were themselves unable to make a copyright determination. They also do not seem to know at all which publication this has been taken from and when.
  7. FfD; notified Bfcdan (talk · contribs
    ) 21:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: As a 1929 publication, still in copyright in the US until 2025. UK copyright could have lapsed in 2000, 70 years after publication.
  8. FfD; notified JD554 (talk · contribs
    ) 21:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: As a 1936 image with no indication of Crown copyright, it will still have been protected in the UK at the URAA restoration date and will thus be protected in the US until 2032.
  9. FfD; notified Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs
    ) 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The author is identified with surname and initial, which suffices not to make this an anonymous image under UK copyright law. Furthermore, the US copyright does not lapse until 2026 in any case.
  10. FfD; notified Cyberia3 (talk · contribs
    ) 21:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Not in the public domain in the US until at least 2030 due to URAA restoration.
  11. FfD; notified Cyberia3 (talk · contribs
    ) 21:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Not PD in the US until 2034 as a 1938 image published abroad that was still in copyright at the URAA restoration date in the UK.
  12. FfD; notified Cyberia3 (talk · contribs
    ) 10:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: This image is taken from a US film, so its first publication would be the US rather than the UK. If anyone has an easier way to check film renewals than trawling through PDF scans, it could be worth looking up the renewal records to check whether this motion picture is in the public domain due to non-renewal; otherwise, I doubt this image would satisfy the non-free content criteria.
  13. FfD; notified Kosack (talk · contribs
    ) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Bringing this up as the description actually asserts that no publication could be found despite what seems like a diligent search by uploader. This may mean that the image was unpublished (and either still is, if its online upload did not have the consent of the copyright holder, or remained unpublished until recently).
      In that case, US law would allow for copyright protection until 120 years after it was made.
      Since this is not a particularly formal shot, it may not even be reasonable to assume that it was made by a photographer and sold to a client, which would constitute publication under old US law.
  14. FfD; notified Cyberia3 (talk · contribs
    ) 22:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

  1. FfD; notified JimmyJoe87 (talk · contribs
    ) 13:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: While this image is PD in the UK, its US copyright will have been restored and not expired if it was taken after 1927.
      There are several images of the subject on Commons, so conversion to non-free use will be hard to justify.
  2. FfD; notified Graemp (talk · contribs
    ) 14:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. FfD; notified Cyberia3 (talk · contribs
    ) 13:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  4. FfD; notified Graemp (talk · contribs
    ) 17:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. FfD
    10:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Duplicate of this Commons file. Neither this file nor the Commons version are in use at the English Wikipedia. Ineligible for F8 as it is tagged Keep Local.
  6. FfD; notified Danprzewoz (talk · contribs
    ) 10:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned picture, whose copyright has been restored in the US and which is hence copyrighted there until 2031.
      Permission is alleged on the description page from the owner of the original copy, but not from the photographer. If it was indeed Jack Pritchard, UK copyright would not expire until 2063.
  7. FfD; notified Duncanogi (talk · contribs
    ) 10:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  8. FfD; notified Duncanogi (talk · contribs
    ) 10:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Another difficult publication issue. As a family photograph taken by an unknown photographer, I would struggle to assert this image having been published. Thus it may be copyrighted in the US until 120 years after creation, i. e. 2047. I appreciate that there may be differing opinions here though.
  9. FfD; notified The Traditionalist (talk · contribs
    ) 11:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  10. FfD; notified Malcolma (talk · contribs
    ) 11:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Unless this factory publicity image was circulated in the US without notice/renewal simultaneously with the UK, it will still be in copyright there until 1928. The image is currently orphaned.
  11. FfD; notified Malcolma (talk · contribs
    ) 11:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  12. FfD; notified Oxonhutch (talk · contribs
    ) 19:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned image of a newspaper clipping whose copyright will have been restored by the URAA and will not expire in the US until 2030.
  13. FfD; notified Cyberia3 (talk · contribs
    ) 20:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  14. FfD; notified MPerel (talk · contribs
    ) 08:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  15. FfD; notified Chulsky (talk · contribs
    ) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  16. FfD; notified Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs
    ) 10:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  17. FfD; notified Aadkinson (talk · contribs
    ) 17:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned file whose public domain status in the US, also its source country, is difficult to justify precisely.
      It is not clear that this was published before 1928. Given that the collection from which this image is sourced does not seem to know when it was made, I doubt its copyright was renewed, so if it was exhibited publicly before 1963,
could be another option.
  1. FfD; notified NLA PIC (talk · contribs
    ) 16:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  2. FfD; notified Cactus.man (talk · contribs
    ) 16:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  3. FfD; notified Frank.trampe (talk · contribs
    ) 12:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: I am not sure what is going on with this file. In particular, I am unclear whether the vectorisation, which may hold its own copyright, is from Harvard University or from a user.
      In any case, a PNG version is held at Commons as a PD image with what seems to me to be sound reasoning, so this should either be deleted as replaceable, or transferred to Commons if the vectorisation is found to be freely licensed.
  4. FfD; notified Connormah (talk · contribs
    ) 15:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  5. FfD; notified Jml1786 (talk · contribs
    ) 15:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is a strange discrepanvy between the named author, who died in 1893, and the dating of the image itself to 1927.
      If the latter dating is correct, the public domain status of the image would have to rely on it having been published at the time of creation; if the image is in fact from the 19th century, it would be in the public domain regardless.
  6. FfD; notified Kober (talk · contribs
    ) 16:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Although the ultimate source used by the artist is clearly old, there is no indication that the artist drawing this particular rendering of the coat of arms, Mikhail Wadbolski, is dead more than 70 years. In fact, a Google search reveals that he was active in the 1940s. If this mural had also been done in that time, it would presumably still be under copyright in Georgia and the US. The only chance I see to keep this as a public domain image would be if it turned out to have been painted (and published) before 1928 or if it were such a close copy of the medieval original as to have no copyright of its own.
  7. FfD; notified Pworms (talk · contribs
    ) 18:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The image is labelled as being used "courtesy" of Medela AG, Baar, Switzerland, without any explicit free license.
      It is questionable whether a cast qualifies as a 2D object and therefore whether {{
      PD-Art
      }} applies; as we also exclude coins from that, doubt that it would be covered.
  8. FfD; notified Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs
    ) 14:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: It seems from previous discussions on Commons that screenshots from films are not considered photographs in Argentinian copyright law. It would be different if this were a publicity still, but the file description explicitly labels it a screenshot and I see no indication that it is not one.
  9. FfD; notified Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs
    ) 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: No evidence that the image has been published before 1976, which would be necessary for it to have been PD in Argentina in 1996 and thus unaffected by the URAA restorations. As the subject, born in 1940, is still alive, it is not even certain whether this image is PD in Argentina. Non-free use is generally hard to justify for a living subject.
  10. FfD; notified Ryan4314 (talk · contribs
    ) 09:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned image of unclear dating; while dated with its upload time, the warship depicted was in service 1978-1982.
      All photos made after 1975 would still be protected in the US due to
      URAA
      restorations.
  11. FfD; notified Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs
    ) 10:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  12. FfD; notified Sherlock4000 (talk · contribs
    ) 10:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: While the image was apparently created in 1951, evidence of publication is only provided from 1981.
      This would be insufficient to render this image PD in the US.
      I am unsure whether we can assume publication soon after creation for what does not seem like a formal photograph, especially since I also do not know what constitutes "publication" in Argentinian law.
  13. FfD; notified King of the North East (talk · contribs
    ) 10:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Still protected by copyright in the US after
      URAA
      restorations. As the subject is still alive, non-free use seems difficult to justify.
  14. FfD; notified Sherlock4000 (talk · contribs
    ) 11:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: To me, this looks derivative of the depicted art installation, whose copyright in Argentina will only expire 70 years after the death of the artist, Marta Minujín, who is still alive.
  15. FfD; notified King of the North East (talk · contribs
    ) 12:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  16. FfD; notified Bsskchaitanya (talk · contribs
    ) 19:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  17. FfD; notified Bsskchaitanya (talk · contribs
    ) 19:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: It seems as if this orphaned image was made after 1951, when Goubert entered the political arena. This makes it still copyrighted in India in 1996 (the URAA restoration date) and thus also still copyrighted in the US.
  18. FfD; notified Bsskchaitanya (talk · contribs
    ) 19:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: No indication of free license at the source or archived versions thereof.
      Unsure of the potential for non-free use in the three articles it is currently being used in.
  19. FfD; notified Bsskchaitanya (talk · contribs
    ) 19:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned file with no indication of a free license at the source.
  20. FfD; notified Noorullah21 (talk · contribs
    ) 12:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  21. FfD; notified INTV1980 (talk · contribs
    ) 11:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Purchasing aphysical photograph on ebay does not transmit copyright in the image. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no further information regarding provenance, dating etc. so even though these images are likely to be public domain in the United States one way or other, I have not been able to make that sure. The most likely would be that they were published before 1964 and then their copyright not renewed, but I doubt that likelihood suffices to relicense it.
  22. FfD; notified INTV1980 (talk · contribs
    ) 11:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Purchasing aphysical photograph on ebay does not transmit copyright in the image. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no further information given regarding its provenance. It seems from some digging that the 5000000th Hoover celebrations took place in 1939, so if these images had been published around then and not renewed, they would now be in the public domain. However, I am unsure that this likelihood suffices for relicensing it PD.
  23. FfD; notified Sensor (talk · contribs
    ) 12:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

  1. FfD; notified Vkjoshi123 (talk · contribs
    ) 18:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: The URAA restored copyright in this image, and thus it should be used as non-free. There are already a lot of allegedly free images used in the article, but apart from the image of Suraiya in her childhood, the remainder will also have been affected by URAA and thus I nominated them for deletion at Commons.
      The question would be whether a free childhood image suffices for this picture to be deleted or whether it could be kept non-free in the infobox.
  2. RfD; Target: Fujifilm (notified); notified MJL (talk · contribs
    ) 09:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Reason: Not mentioned at the target. Presumably a Fujifilm product, but I have no idea what kind, and I have not been able to find it on Wikipedia using the search function

February 2024

  1. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 08:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: As there is no indication that this Australian image is under Crown Copyright, its US copyright would have been restored by the
      WP:URAA
      .
      It should therefore be treated as a non-free file and presumably removed from the non-biography pages (a list article and one about the sports team the subject played for).
  2. FfD; notified Biatch (talk · contribs
    ) 14:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: As a post-1945 Australian photo, US copyright has been restored by the
      URAA
      in 1996. In principle, it could be acceptable non-free use as a historic photo, but the building depicted is not actually mentioned in the article outside the caption.
  3. FfD; notified Boylo (talk · contribs
    ) 15:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: As the subject only started his broadcasting career in 1953, this image is presumably not in the PD in the US as it would have been protected in Australia in 1996 (cf.
      WP:URAA
      ). The only exception would be if it were a government image that fell under Crown copyright, but there is no evidence of that.
      As there is already a free image of the subject in the article, I doubt non-free use is possible under our guidelines.
  4. FfD; notified Parsecboy (talk · contribs
    ) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  5. FfD
    16:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: This particular rendering of the crest is unlikely to be old enough to be in the public domain; For instance, a 1911 version can be found on this silk scarf.
      That rendering of the same coat of arms will certainly be in the public domain in the US. To me, the difference is sufficient to doubt that the current rendering is too similar to previous renderings not to attract new copyright.
  6. FfD; notified Bdow1722 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  7. FfD; notified Zzrbiker (talk · contribs
    ) 17:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  8. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: US copyright of this 1947 image will have been restored by the
      URAA
      , and there are already two free images in the subject's article, making a non-free use claim unlikely.

March 2024

  1. FfD; notified RevolutionaryPatriot (talk · contribs
    ) 11:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. FfD; notified Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs
    ) 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: The event depicted here has always been dated "in the late 1930s", with the date "c. 1920s" added by
      URAA
      and would not expire until 95 years after publication.
      The image is not in use on any pages.
  3. FfD; notified Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs
    ) 15:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. FfD; notified Noman488 (talk · contribs
    ) 15:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned file whose US copyright was renewed by the
      URAA
      in 1996.
  5. FfD; notified Noman488 (talk · contribs
    ) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned file (disclaimer: It was used in
      URAA
      and will not expire in the US until 2043.
  6. FfD; notified Averroist (talk · contribs
    ) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: The author of this map, taken from a pamphlet whose place of first publication is unclear to me (UK/India/Pakistan), died in 1951, and therefore should have entered the public domain in its source country some time between 2001 and 2021.
      Due to the
      URAA
      , US copyright will in all likelihood last until 2029. As this is a very valuable historic image, I am not sure whether non-free use might be possible; on the other hand, one could draw a free alternative showing the same proposed "states".
  7. FfD; notified Dewaar (talk · contribs
    ) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is no evidence that this photo, which was shot in Rome and is sourced to a website of the Australian Olympic Committee, was first published in Pakistan. If it were first published in Italy, then it could be a "simple photo" which only had a 20 year copyright period.
      If first published anywhere else, then it is likely still to be copyrighted in the US because of the
      URAA
      .
  8. FfD; notified HMAwiki (talk · contribs
    ) 19:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. FfD; notified Tom1955 (talk · contribs
    ) 13:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: It is unclear on what grounds the base map is assumed to be out of copyright. Cypriot copyright terms apparently ended 50 years pma at URAA restoration date, and 50 years post-publication if published anonymously, but I don't see enough in this snippet to determine that this has been published anonymously in Cyprus before 1946.
      As the map could be redrawn by anyone, I think non-free use will be hard to justify.
  10. FfD; notified Harminderdesign (talk · contribs
    ) 10:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: I am not sure that the uploader (who has not been active for almost 10 years) really intends to claim they are the original author of this 1965 work, which will still be copyrighted in the US at least until 2060.
  11. FfD; notified FrJosephSuaiden (talk · contribs
    ) 12:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. FfD; notified Mikepena (talk · contribs
    ) 14:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder, that the copyright holder released this image into the public domain or that this image has ben published before 1979 without a copyright notice. It may be eligible for non-free use as a historic image, though.

April 2024

  1. FfD; notified Mondiad (talk · contribs
    ) 19:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Albanian images from after 1928 that are still copyrighted in the USA due to the
      URAA
      . None of them are in use (in article space).
  2. FfD; notified Mondiad (talk · contribs
    ) 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  3. FfD; notified Mondiad (talk · contribs
    ) 09:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Another unused Albanian image whose copyright could have been restored by the URAA. I am listing this one separately since the photo is dated 1928-1930 and its US copyright could therefore possibly have expired last year. In any case, if we believe the dating rationale that his ministerial tenure ran until 1930, we can undelete in 2026.
  4. FfD; notified Mondiad (talk · contribs
    ) 10:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. FfD; notified Mondiad (talk · contribs
    ) 10:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  6. FfD; notified Vinie007 (talk · contribs
    ) 11:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: This image is claimed to have been published in a 1921 book, which would put it into the public domain in the US as well as in Albania. However, several other images of the same uploader (last active in 2015) claimed different publication dates for the same book (1931 and 1936). While it is conceivable that these refer to different editions of the same book, there is no record of a book of the name "Ustishe te Zogus" anywhere to be found outside of references to those files.
      The file is not currently in use.
  7. FfD; notified Mondiad (talk · contribs
    ) 11:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  8. FfD; notified Cloudaoc (talk · contribs
    ) 13:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  9. FfD; notified Sherlock4000 (talk · contribs
    ) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  10. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 11:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: There is no evidence that this image is from before 1946 and therefore unaffected by the URAA. A free 1943 image of Frank Farrell is already in use in the article.
  11. FfD; notified Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs
    ) 11:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  12. FfD; notified Florrie (talk · contribs
    ) 15:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  13. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 15:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  14. FfD; notified SMC (talk · contribs
    ) 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: This image is supposedly free in Australia as an anonymous work. However, there is clearly a signature at the bottom and no indication of when the author died. This uncertainty will presumably preclude it from Commons until 2050, although we could restore it as PD in the US only in January 2025, since its US copyright will then have expired after the usual 95 year term.
  15. FfD; notified 42° South (talk · contribs
    ) 08:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  16. FfD; notified 42° South (talk · contribs
    ) 08:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  17. FfD; notified 42° South (talk · contribs
    ) 08:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  18. FfD; notified Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs
    ) 09:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
  19. FfD; notified Timeshift9 (talk · contribs
    ) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: According to the signature (visible here, this portrait is by Norman Carter, who died in 1963. Thus Australian copyright will last until 2033 inclusive. The painting has apparently been painted in 1921, which if published then would place it public domain in the US. However, I could not ascertain its exhibition history or whether it was displayed in public where copies could have easily been made, so I am unsure about the US publication timetable. The image is orphaned.
  20. FfD; notified FiggyBee (talk · contribs
    ) 14:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: No source and no indication of when the image was taken or published. The subject was alive until 1962 and Lord Mayer of Brisbane until 1952. The photograph would have to have been taken before 1946 to be free of copyright in the US.
      The image is in use on the article of the subject, but free alternatives are available at Commons.
  21. FfD; notified 42° South (talk · contribs
    ) 15:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  22. FfD; notified Majormax (talk · contribs
    ) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Painting by Dacre Smyth (1923-2008). While the exact date of creation is not given, it will certainly have been after 1928, and Australian copyright will still run until 2078 inclusive. While the file is in use in three articles, I doubt that a modern depiction of a historical event over 200 years ago satisfies the criteria for non-free content.
  23. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  24. FfD; notified Loopla (talk · contribs
    ) 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

  1. FfD; notified Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs
    ) 17:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Orphaned file with no provenance. If from after 1928, it will in all likelihood still be copyrighted in the US due to the
      URAA
      restorations. As we know nothing about its authorship, it may well even still be copyrighted in Turkey today if the photographer died after 1953.
  2. FfD; notified Sticks66 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Reason: Non-free in the US due to
      URAA
      restoration. There are already other free images in the article on the player from which his portrait could conceivably be cropped, but they are all quite low resolution themselves and therefore would make for a very low resolution crop. I am not sure how that affects replaceability, since of course someone could go to the Archive where the image is kept and make a higher resolution scan.
  3. FfD; notified Dan027 (talk · contribs
    ) 16:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Felix_QW/XfD_log&oldid=1226437996"