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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyundai A-League logo (2004–2017).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pg 6475 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically:

• Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Ирука¹³ 00:01, 9 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.

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⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Home of the Bamboo.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Swedensm (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A worse version of this picture. — Ирука¹³ 03:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 03:59, 10 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.

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⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral Manfredi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Potionkin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Published in 2015. It is not in the public domain either in Italy or in the US. — Ирука¹³ 03:31, 9 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.

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⚡ 10:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:UH Cleveland.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vjmlhds (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The parent image is indexed by search engines much earlier than it is uploaded to Commons. This is the only edit from the account. Confirmation is required that the copyright owner and the uploader are the same person. — Ирука¹³ 04:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The username of the Commons account does suggest the uploader is affiliated with University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center. However, the photograph is credited to an Eric Hanson, who appears to be a freelance photographer rather than an employee of the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. We will need evidence that Eric Hanson has authorized the release of the photo under a free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per above; EXIF data on the parent image also strongly implies that Hanson retains copyright to it. jp×g 00:36, 10 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.

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. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydspissen, Tromsø, 1956.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PentagonPizza (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The photo is not in the public domain in the US, as it was not in the public domain in Norway in 1996. — Ирука¹³ 04:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the file information at the source URL, maintained by the national library of Norway, says that it was released into the public domain by Mittet & Co. AS (the permission is specifically Du kan kopiere, endre, spre, vise og fremføre dette verket, selv for kommersielle formål, uten å spørre om tillatelse and links to https://www.nb.no/lisens/publicdomain ). jp×g 00:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link states that the photo is in the public domain. It does not say anywhere that the author released the photo to the public domain. And in Norway the photo is truly in the public domain. — Ирука¹³ 01:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: your post does not say anywhere specifically that it's written by "Iruka13", it's simply a string of characters with "Iruka13" at the end, so there is no way for me to tell who wrote it. Is this the level of evidence you are insisting we abide by? jp×g 02:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"NASA forgot about cosmic radiation", yes. But the creators of Wikipedia created a "history" page. — Ирука¹³ 02:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The source says that Du kan kopiere, endre, spre, vise og fremføre dette verket, selv for kommersielle formål, uten å spørre om tillatelse. Translation: You can copy, change, distribute, show and perform this work, also for commercial purposes, without asking for permission. It does not say that permission has been granted, so it could mean that they think that the copyright has expired. The Norwegian National Library probably only looks at Norwegian law, not United States law, so what it means is that the copyright has expired in Norway. For the United States, we must look at what the law says in order to establish the copyright status. Clicking on the "informasjon" link reveals that the photo was taken in 1956 and that the photographer is called Lie-Svendsen. I can't find a death year, but searching for photos by Lie-Svendsen, I find photos from 1900 until 1964. Due to the long time range, and considering that we only have a surname, I'm guessing that we are talking about at least two generations of photographers. Considering the text on the photo, I assume that it was a postcard or at least some kind of photo which was published shortly after publication.

Current Norwegian copyright rule: c:Template:PD-Norway50 states that the copyright term is 50 years from creation or 15 years from the death of the photographer, whichever is longer. The 50-year term expired in 2007.

Former Norwegian copyright rule: The copyright term was 25 years from creation or 15 years from the death of the photographer, whichever was longer. The 25-year term expired in 1982. You may only use the old rule if the 15-year term and the 25-year term both expired before 29 June 1995. In other words, the old rule may only be used if the photographer died before 1971.

The death year of the photographer is unknown, but as the name of the photographer is known, this does not matter; copyright expiry in Norway still depends on the death year of the photographer. The National Library claims that the photo currently is in the public domain in Norway, so it can be assumed that the photographer died at least 15 years ago. This seems perfectly reasonable considering that the last known photo is from 1964: if the photographer retired at that point, he was probably quite old and wouldn't live for another 30-40 years. However, 1971 was only seven years after the last photo was taken, and it is perfectly reasonable that he lived in retirement for at least seven years before dying, so we can't expect to be able to use the old rule.

United States copyright rule: If the copyright expired in Norway before 1996, then it is in the public domain in the United States, but the copyright only expired in Norway before that date if the old Norwegian copyright term can be used. If the copyright expired in Norway after 1996, then the full United States copyright term of 95 years from publication is granted. Since we don't know the exact death year, it does not seem safe to rely on the old Norwegian copyright term, so we have to assume that this was still copyrighted in Norway in 1996. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the highest-level archival organization in the country of Norway is fairly well-versed in what it means for a photograph from Norway to be in the public domain. If said organization says that a photograph is in the public domain, and provides no asterisk or disclaimer alongside this statement, it's unclear to me what benefit is gained from delving into assumptions about whether the image was released by the photographer, the company, the library or hans kongelige Majestet Harald V konge av Norge. It seems to me that, in the astronomically unlikely event that the heir of the heir of the photographer's estate chooses to pursue legal action for its use of this image, the fact that the library of Norway unambiguously claims the image to be in the public domain without qualification is a pretty obvious factor here. If the rightsholders said that it had not been released prior to 1996, and sent us a takedown notice, based on the fact that technically the image wasn't released until ten minutes after midnight in 1996, thus making it illegal for anyone to look at it until the year 3028, then sure, there would be an argument for removing it. But I don't think we have some kind of obligation to have unqualified volunteers carry out hours of detective work in the hopes of unearthing clues as to why the Library of Norway is lying about what license its images are under, or carrying out original research to determine when said images may or may not have been released to the public domain. If we are going to assume worst-case bad faith scenarios on the part of everyone involved, why not just assume that all Norwegians may (0.00001 isn't 0!) be lying at all times, and delete all of our illustrations from said country? jp×g 00:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the website does not say that the copyright holder has released the image to the public domain, it only says that the image is in the public domain, which it could also be from copyright expiration. The page is maintained by a Norwegian entity, the text is in Norwegian and most of the intended target audience is in Norway, so presumably the National Library only talks about the copyright status in Norway.

Let's take a different example. Assume that the Library of Congress has a photo from Alaska, and that this photo is in the public domain in the United States due to having been published without a copyright notice. However, the French supreme court has ruled that the rule of the shorter term may not be used on copyright formalities. If the Library of Congress were to show that photo on a website directed to Americans, do you really think that the Library of Congress would mention that the photo maybe is copyrighted in France, or would they just report that the photo is in the public domain? Why would the Norwegian National Library act in a different way? --Stefan2 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original uploader of this image, and want to say that I am frankly astounded that so much effort is being expended on debating what should be a completely trivial matter. The photo is clearly in the public domain, as the country in which it was taken has declared it to be. Norway is clearly the deciding authority in this situation, and if they claim the photo is public, it obviously is.

The argument regarding the difference between the photo being in the public domain and being explicitly released into the public domain is pointless, because if the photo is in the public domain, it follows that at some point it was released into the public domain.

In the extremely unlikely scenario that a request is made to remove the photo by a copyright holder, we can remove it, but otherwise this entire debate is a massive waste of time. PentagonPizza (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norway only decides if a photograph is in the public domain in Norway. Norway has no say on whether a photograph is in the public domain in other countries, such as the United States.

There is a very big difference between releasing a photograph to the public domain and entering the public domain by virtue of copyright expiration. The former is a wish by the copyright holder, so it can be assumed that the photo can be freely used worldwide. The latter is based on national law which is different in each country and so it happens at different points in different countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with user:Stefan2 here. To me the statement given by the National Library of Norway is most likely a statement of fact, which is perfectly true regarding Norwegian law. There is no reason at all to assume that the National Library intends to describe the situation in the US, so unless some evidence is found that Lie-Svendsen died before 1971 I would also tend to delete the image. Felix QW (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:As this image is dated and assumed published in 1956, the author and death of autor could matter. I belive it do not. The image-agency Mittet & Co. A/S " Han ansatte etter hvert egne fotografer og utgav prospektkort" translates to - He hired photograpers and published postal cards.

The collection from the firm was partly given to the [Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage] according to the norwegian WP-page. The firm itself have not given the material to the Public Domain. But. As a hired photograper the copyright would belong to the firm and last for a shorter period of time. 25 years? If so 1981/2 seems to be a fair date. Later longer periods of copyright do not include material already fallen into the Pubic Domain. Summa sumarum I do belive this image is in the public domain, and have been so since 1981/2. Keep. Another image very alike is there in a probably not published version. The archive here have unpublished negatives, and publish without claiming copyright on the image. That would too be in the public domain. Keep. Andrez1 (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you conclude that copyright lasts 25 years in cases where photographs were taken for hire? — Ирука¹³ 05:11, 17 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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jebena in Asmara, Eritrea.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Merhawie (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no freedom of panorama in Eritrea, so the pottery presented here is protected under copyright. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I think the pottery could be considered utilitarian as it is used to brew coffee. However, the licensing claim is still dubious as I could not find any mention of a free license at the source website. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:25, 9 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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upright.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Admeister200x (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Webshots shut down years ago, so the license cannot be verified. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 04:04, 10 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.

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. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:F.6 Forlanini Airship.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 84user (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука¹³ 16:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; this airship was built in 1918. Its source is on the Italian Wikipedia, where there are quite a few explanations of its copyright status; did you check these? jp×g 22:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I clearly see the "Do not move to Commons" template, which hints that the photo is not in the public domain in the US. — Ирука¹³ 01:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple photograph, and unless we want to believe the negatives were kept in a drawer for over 60 years, this is public domain in Italy and the US. Abzeronow (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone took a photo, printed the photo and put it in a drawer for some reason - this happens often. Died. The heir did not go through the boxes. Or maybe he sold them, boxes. We don’t know what year. (...) The photo was published in 1999. — Ирука¹³ 13:21, 16 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.

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. No prejudice to restoration if someone can produce a citation from a reliable source that explicitly describes this image as PD -FASTILY 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ildebrando Goiran2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Potionkin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no information that the photo was published somewhere. — Ирука¹³ 22:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The photo was taken during World War I, between 1915 and 1918, and is clearly taken from a newspaper; it is hard to imagine why such a photo would be taken in 1915-18, considered notable enough to publish in a newspaper, but inexplicably kept in a box for ten years. jp×g 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did you determine that this photo was from a newspaper? — Ирука¹³ 13:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The rasterised quality strongly suggests that this was scanned from a printed copy of the photo, for example from a newspaper. Of course, we don't know the publication date, but the yellow colour suggests that the paper is old, probably at least several decades. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 16 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.