The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Not deleted

Appears to be unfree: fails {{PD-Russia-2008}}, as we do not know the author, and it is unclear if this is from a film (it appears to be a picture). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this is a 1936 photograph taken by an anonymous photographer. This is exactly {{PD-Russia-2008}} requirement Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For an anonymous work in the EU, I know that "every effort must be shown that the original author of the work was not credited". In this case, I think we just don't know who it is because our source is insufficient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retagged, OK for en.wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This is a case where (a) the sourcing is really weak, (b) it is extremely likely that the image is PD, (c) this can't be conclusively shown, and (d) if the image were copyrighted, the value of copyright to the holder would be negligible. In these cases, I recommend we tag these as valid PD images. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:20, 30 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from source page: © British Transport Police 2008. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2009 (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 image 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: Not deleted

Even if this picture were taken in the interwar period (1919-39), this photo would likely not be in the public domain in the EU. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was not taken in the interwar period, but in the 19th century!!! It has been exposed in a museum around 1860. Kenshin (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing and long-stemmed pipe indicate that the image pre-dates the First World War, nor does it appear to have been modified. RashersTierney (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This is a case where (a) the sourcing is really weak, (b) it is extremely likely that the image is PD, (c) this can't be conclusively shown, and (d) if the image were copyrighted, the value of copyright to the holder would be negligible. In these cases, I recommend we tag these as valid PD images. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a reasonable assessment. RashersTierney (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dc.gov: "United States and foreign copyright laws and international conventions protect the contents of the Site. You agree to abide by all copyright notices posted on the Site. " Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above notice is a disclaimer for contents of the site that are not products of the U.S. Federal Government. It is not a copyright notice on the contents as a whole. Washington D.C. is a federally administered district governed under the authority of the United States Congress. Official works (such as an official portrait of its police chief), and the large majority of website contents would be covered under {{PD-USGov}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, apparently Washington DC is not considered part of the U.S. Government copyright exemption. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low-res...bad quality ViperSnake151  Talk  15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these are advantages for non-free works under the fair use guidelines. I do think it is very unlikely that the uploader "created this work entirely by [him]self" though - the true copyright status should be ascertained before it can be retained. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2009 (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 image 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source for this image is http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKchapin.jpg which has nothing to do with the Executive Office of the President of the United States. There is no indication that this photo was taken by a member of the White House staff. No hits on a tineye search. Captain-tucker (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (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 image 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: Not deleted

Appears to be an image of a copyright advertisement. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Now tagged as non-free. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:59, 30 April 2009 (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.