Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 7

September 7

File:WEWS MX 93.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free replaceable file declared as free. — Ирука¹³ 07:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mislabelled non-free file with no obvious use in the article The Morning Exchange. Salavat (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Queen of Pakistan letter to King of Iraq.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Unclear copyright status. As stated below, there's a lot of (well-reasoned) discussion and disagreement about whether "publication" actually occurred and/or whether the Queen was acting as the Queen of the UK or of Pakistan. Either way, no prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 07:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming that the letter was published in 1955, it only entered the public domain in 2006, which is 10 years later than 1996. — Ирука¹³ 04:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe: The letter was clearly made by Queen Elizabeth II in Buckingham Palace, so depending on the date of publication this could be public domain per

_talk} 15:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current year is 2023. 2006 was seventeen years ago. If an image entered the public domain in 2006, it is in the public domain in 2023. jp×g 21:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
_talk} 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Someone seems to have tagged this with {{
_talk} 11:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and move to commons. This was done in the Queen's official role. Per

User:Matr1x-101, that could make it Template:PD-UKGov if she did it in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. Even if it's in her role as Queen of Pakistan, it's still not copyrighted per Commons:Template:PD-Pakistan

which also says govt works get 50 years of protection.

FYI, this is not a personal letter. This is a diplomatic letter of credence (which is how I found this) which is issued in the name of the head of state for a diplomat to present to another head of state in a diplomatic ritual. Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 23:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

_talk} 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Isn't sending a letter to a foreign head of state publication? Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 16:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

_talk} 20:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Matr1x-101: letters of credence are typically presented in a public ceremony. Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 14:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

_talk} 15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If I am not missing anything, then UK Crown Copyright would have expired regardless of publication 50 years from creation, and as the UK government expressly indicated that they will not pursue Crown Copyright in the US even if it is still copyrighted there, that would be fine by us.

However, I highly doubt that it falls under UK copyright, since the Queen was acting as Queen of Pakistan under the direction of the Pakistani government, and under Pakistani law the letter may well never have been published so that Pakistani government copyright may still be in effect. In my mind, a mere handing over of a sealed envelope in a public ceremony is insufficient for publication, regardless of the number of people present at the ceremony itself. I would assume that the same holds for handing a single copy to the Foreign minister, although then at least two copies exist. Felix QW (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Trains art.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

derivative of non-free content, there is no FOP for 2D works of art in the US FASTILY 08:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is from after March 1989, the mural is copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.