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: clean up and keep. Dianna (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have enough information here to accurately determine the copyright status of this image. Dianna (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the information is given in the discription. This Image was originally published in La difesa della razza (1942) Over 70 years ago with No named author. http://scienzeumanegiudici.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/la-difesa-della-razza1.jpg%3Fw%3D261%26h%3D331
The Fischer Lexikon adopted it as part of its Racial segment in 1959 and 1970 editions. Do your own research and stop bothering me now with your nonsense, its getting annoying. (Daufer (talk))
The first time you uploaded it you said it was published in 1959; the file currently says it was published in 1939; and now you are saying it was published in 1942. This is why I am confused, and this is why you need to provide additional information so the copyright status of the image can be accurately determined. You also need to select the correct license, as you are not the copyright holder, and are thus unable to release it under a GFDL license. -- Dianna (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, the ISSUE (in the link) is of 1942 the image was from 1939, its in that Issue. And again the Publication (that form) is from the Fischer Lexikon of 1959, which in turn stems from the issue of 1942 (which has no author and is over 70 years old). AGAIN, the image as shown in the link is from a 1942 Issue of La difesa della razza, re-used by the Fischer Lexikon in 1959 and 1970. In any case it has no stated author and is over 70 years old. Thats all the info. (Daufer (talk))
So it was a photo taken in 1939 published in a magazine in Europe in 1942? If there was a copyright notice on the magazine in compliance with US copyright law and the copyright was renewed, the copyright expires 95 years from the date of publication (in 2037). If it was published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of URAA date of 1996, then it is now in the public domain and should be templated as pd-1996. There's more information at Commons:Hirtle chart. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"So it was a photo taken in 1939 published in a magazine in Europe in 1942?" Yes.
As far as i know it WAS (1938-1943) a Fascist Propaganda Magazine from Fascist Italy, so it had no compliance with the US Copyright Law. Acc. to German and Italian Copyright law, the Copyright expires after 70 years with no named (anonymous) Author. Which is also the case for the Meyers-Blitz Lexikon images in use on Wikipedia. Should i re-template it or whats the deal? (Daufer (talk))
I have cleaned up the file for you. Sorry you found dealing with copyright law to be a frustrating experience. By the way I am a dudette, not a dude. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 20:35, 2 March 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: Deleted as F7; image was Getty. Dianna (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found the page before at Gettyimages.com and the license is not CC 1.0 as claimed. Eeekster (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete F7 - Taken from Gettyimages.com . LGAtalkedits 08:38, 2 March 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.
This is a departmental logo, so I am questioning if this is under the license given. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no bar to re upload as a fair use, the South Australia governmentexcludes images in it's blanket CC licence, this is an image, so therfore it is not included. LGAtalkedits 00:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link provided on the file as a source is broken so I am unable to check it out. The uploader does not offer any proof that the image is in the public domain as claimed. Other of his uploads have been listed for deletion for Flickr washing and other such issues, so I am concerned about the copyright status of this one as well. Dianna (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSafar Iranpak was born in 1947, and he doesn't look too old on the photo. In the public domain in the United States if published (because Iran has refused to sign copyright treaties with other countries), but because of an old RfC, we would only keep it if it has been published at least 30 years ago. The link works for me (it goes to [1]). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Screen grab from a TV show Card Sharks and NOT users own work LGAtalkedits 23:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Image has been changed since nomination, however it is still a derivative work of the card back unless the uploader has themselves designed the card back. LGAtalkedits 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if not a copyright problem, the quality of the image is very poor. Eeekster (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
