Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 15

August 15

File:Gazelle-class cruiser plan, profile, and cross section.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: Going to go ahead and close this because this has been open for awhile and discussion has stalled out. The copyright status seems unclear, however there doesn't appear to be any agreement about what should be done. For cases like this, I recommend utilizing Wikipedia:Media copyright questions which gets more traffic from seasoned copyright experts. -Fastily 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a German image from 1905, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What basis do you have to believe this image was published anonymously? The first page in the source seems to imply that Weyer produced them, and it clearly states that he retained all rights. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you did not mark the correct author of the file when uploading it, but thought that the file was uncertain. In addition, since the image was published in Germany, German copyright law stipulates that works enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense; I said the page implies that Weyer drew the sketches, but it's not clear.

Yes, indeed; when did Weyer die? Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He died 10 December 1936 (Weyers Flottentaschenbuch 64th edition, 1999–2001 cited by deWP. - Davidships (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is the issue just one of which template to use? So far as I can see this is PD in both the origin country (Germany) and most likely so in USA. I have not seen the publication, so cannot comment on whether any conclusions can be drawn from the specifics of copyright statements, acknowledgements or other front material. A general reservation of rights at the beginning may not answer the question - that is commonly found in books, and it's in the front material or in the captions of illustrations that the specific rights owners or sources are indicated. But this is academic since, as I understand it either Weyer drew the sketch (he's been dead for 87 years) or he didn't (copyright on anon published source expired in, I think, 1975 in Germany). Is there any evidence that the book was published at all in the USA, and might consequently fall foul of the arcane "restitution" rules under URAA (if by Weyer, the sketch would seem to have been in copyright at 1/1/1996) - the most-knowledgeable folk on Commons will no doubt deal appropriately with this if we make a good-faith mistake. - Davidships (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (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:SMS Niobe in harbor.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a German image from 1902, uploaded anonymously to a German military magazine. It is likely that anonymous works have entered the public domain within the EU. Please move the image to WikiCommons using the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What basis do you have to believe that this was published anonymously? The fact that you don't know now who took the photo does not mean that it was published anonymously. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see this is PD in both the origin country (Germany) and most likely so in USA. I have not seen the publication, so cannot comment on whether any conclusions can be drawn from the specifics of copyright statements, acknowledgements or other front material. A general reservation of rights at the beginning may not answer the question - that is commonly found in books, and it's in the front material or in the captions of illustrations that the specific rights owners or sources are indicated. But this is academic since, as I understand it either Weyer took the photo (he's been dead for 87 years) or he didn't (copyright on anon published source expired in, I think, 1975 in Germany); or is there an actual attribution to another named photographer? Is there any evidence that the book was published at all in the USA, and might consequently fall foul of the arcane "restitution" rules under URAA (if by Weyer, the sketch would seem to have been in copyright at 1/1/1996) - the most-knowledgeable folk on Commons will no doubt deal appropriately with this if we make a good-faith mistake. - Davidships (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any indication this image is by Weyer; however, it should certainly be covered by {{PD-old-assumed}}, meaning it could be transferred to Commons in any case. Felix QW (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2024 (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:6NEWS HD LOGO.png

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 ⚡ 05:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. However, this particular logo may or may not meet the threshold of originality. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2024 (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:RTV6 News.png

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, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We typically don't keep non-free former logos unless there is significant commentary about them. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2024 (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.