Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 July 6

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; deleted by

File:Mother of God School main building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The image is on the schools webpage here. I think at the least we need a
  WP:CONSENT email. Peripitus (Talk) 10:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I believed that this photo was taken by myself; perhaps I uploaded a different file by mistake? I think it's best to delete it as it is not that essential to the article it is used in. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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; deleted by

File:Math3-affine.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Scan of a book that is probably still in copyright Storkk (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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; deleted by

File:MineCon2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be invalid use of a non-free logo. The MineCon logo prominently displayed in this photo is stated to be "Copyright © Mojang AB" at
  MineCon article under a claim of fair use. This calls into question uploader's publication of this photo under a free license. – Wdchk (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Fair enough, didn't think of that............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, the logo is probably pd-textlogo. The bigger issue is that background banner, which is copyrighted art and not de minimis. – czar 07:07, 29 July 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 02:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Lindsay Brandon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source for this image is given here or at the German Wikipedia. (It could be simply tagged with {{
  subst:npd}} and summarily deleted if no source is forthcoming.) I searched and found http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002736496/ which, though it does not tell what picture this description is for, says it refers to an item whose rights status has not been evaluated. I found this auction but it doesn't give us an idea of who took the photo or where it was first published. If it was taken by a private citizen and first published after 1923, it might still be subject to copyright. B (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Did you bother checking the dates? Brandon died in 1890. which means any photo has to have been taken before then.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For a picture taken in 1890 or earlier, we basically have these options:

Not published before 2003, the identity of the photographer has been revealed somewhere: copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer. We don't know whether the photographer has disclosed his identity or not, but for a photograph of this age, we can probably assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years anyway.

Not published before 2003, the identity of the photographer hasn't been revealed anywhere: copyright expired 120 years after the photograph was taken, although at the earliest on 1 January 2003. In this case, the copyright has expired, so the image can be kept.

Published before 1923: the copyright expired at the latest 75 years after the photograph was taken, probably earlier. In either case, the copyright has expired.

First published between 1923 and 2002: the copyright has either expired due to lack of compliance with copyright formalities, or it expires either 95 years after publication or on 1 January 2048. It's probably unlikely that it was first published during this period with copyright formalities, so can we disregard this option and simply keep the image? --

Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Taken from another page, but still relevant: When I uploaded that image, I thought it was a reasonable assumption to make that a photo of an individual who died in 1890 would surely be out of copyright. I knew the rule was either life plus 70 years, or life plus 100 years. Assuming the image was taken in 1865, just after the Civil War, and the photographer was, say, 30 years old, and lived the average life expectancy of the time (40 years), that would mean that the copyright expired in 1945 or 1975. If it were taken in 1890, just before Brandon's death (unlikely), and the photographer was between 25 and 30 and lived the average life expectancy of a North American around the year 1900 (41 years), that would mean the copyright would have expired between 1970 and 1976, by the life + 70 year rule; or between 2000 and 2006, by the life + 100 year rule. I'd say it is pretty reasonable to think the image has expired. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 July 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.