Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 16

January 16

File:Map of Felixstowe College 1979.jpeg

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 ⚡ 16:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Stefan2, I'd argue that including this map directly supports criterion 8 on contextual significance, as without the map, I know of no other way to show readers where the College was. The current map of the town shows no trace of the school, since much of its land (including playing fields) and building was demolished to build a housing estate. I scanned this map from my personal collection of documents from that time. Since the school no longer exists, there's no copyright owner from whom to obtain permission for an image of the map. If you can point to an alternative source for this map, I'll be pleased to know about it. Laurajwilkinson (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the map itself is not discussed in the article, the image falls under WP:NFC#UUI#4 / WP:FREER. — Ирука¹³ 17:48, 20 January 2025 (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:Babaschesssmallcrop.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is another, freely licensed screenshot of an interface at Free Internet Chess Server such that this is unnecessary and thus fails WP:NFCC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 16 January 2025 (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:Anne of Green Gables (1919 movie poster).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--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Anne of Green Gables (1919 film).jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 14:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both for now as this file is slightly better in quality compared to the one on Commons. However, part of this poster has been cropped out near the top. I am not opposed to deletion if an uncropped version is found. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found a better image and uploaded it to Commons as File:Anne of Green Gables (Library and Archives Canada).jpg. We can delete this one now. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2025 (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:Fantastic vol3num3.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Fantastic 195406.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 14:23, 16 January 2025 (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:HitComics5.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:HitComicsNumber5.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 14:26, 16 January 2025 (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:AnnaMayWongPiccadillyCover.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: keep in the absence of evidence of a clear copyright notice on the original poster. ✗plicit 11:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is either an original poster from 1929 which has been reused for the DVD (in which case it can be retagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}), or a more recent image (in which case it fails WP:NFCC#1 as it could be replaced by an original 1929 poster). Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOFIXIT [1]. Buffs (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I fix it? As there is no information available on whether the image was published before 1930 or not (the uploader did not disclose this, nor did the uploader provide any sources for determining this), it is not possible to determine if the image is in the public domain in the United States or not. If it isn't in the public domain in the United States, the file violates WP:NFCC#1, as I wrote. Your so-called 'fix' doesn't contain any evidence that it was published before 1930 as you didn't provide a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This specific image appears to be an amalgamation of 2 parts of a previous image and was first published no earlier than 1970 (note the tag at the bottom of the image indicates this cover is a restored version by BFI...which was in 1970), however, note that this movie was published in 1970 and that the movie posters would require a registered copyright in the US in order to retain protections. There is no record of such a copyright in the US, therefore this image is in the public domain on a multitude of reasons. Buffs (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  More infoThis movie's posters were first published in the US in/before 1970. The movie posters were not published with copyright notices and, therefore, this image fell into the public domain per US copyright laws. Example circa 1970. These posters were later used as DVD/VHS covers. This specific image was used for the Austrian release in 1929. This specific cover was first published in 2005, but the cover's artwork (the vast majority of the cover) is the poster image produced in 1929 (the rest is just addition/alteration of text which cannot alone be the subject of a new copyright) Buffs (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that this was first published in the US? It is a UK film.

Where is the evidence that it was first published in the 1970s?

Where is the evidence that it was published without a copyright notice? This page has a copy of the picture with some small text at the bottom at the places where you would normally expect to find a copyright notice. However, the text is too small, so I can't see if it is a copyright notice or something else. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First published in the US: 1929. Remastered edition was 1970 with the poster in question. Links were provided.

re: "Where is the evidence that it was published without a copyright notice?" To be blunt, that's right before you. Copyright notices on posters was not common practice at the time as duplication technology was in its infancy. Anyone who copied a promotional poster was producing free publicity for them and not considered a significant factor. Buffs (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be assumed that a copyright notice was present unless otherwise proven. As it is not possible for me to read the text, I don't know if there was a copyright notice or not. If you claim that there was no copyright notice, then provide a legible transcript of the text at the bottom so that this can be confirmed.

You provided several links, but none of them reveals when or where this poster was first published. --20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"It has to be assumed that a copyright notice was present unless otherwise proven" That's literally the exact opposite of copyright law. It has to be proven to exist to claim such a copyright (and a registry at the time...which I can find no evidence of). Buffs (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is only lost in the event of absence of a copyright notice. It is not lost because we don't know if there was a copyright notice or not because the text is too small to be legible; instead, you have to look at the actual poster (or a better scan) in order to determine if there was a copyright notice. Also, a copyright notice is only relevant in the first place if this was first published in the United States, which we have no evidence of. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, given the age of the original image, you're in the territory that a copyright had to be clearly visible AND (eventually) registered. The REGISTERED component is also missing; no indication such a copyright was registered anywhere. Nothing I see there shows a copyright notice. As neither of these are present, it is PD. This is in stark contrast to the current copyright rules where things are presumed to be copyrighted. Laws and caselaw changed that in the 80s and 90s, but pretty much everything in the 70s and back is PD unless you can prove a copyright was registered and didn't expire. Buffs (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is that we don't know how old this is. Registration is a US thing, and there is no evidence that it was first published in the United States. As I pointed out before, it is a British film. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say that this is an Austrian poster from 1929. Thus, the DVD cover, slightly edited compared to the original, has the same license ({{PD-US-expired-abroad}}). However, it is not clear why English was used for the Austrian audience. In addition, the same sources mention that this image (with a naked chest) is missing from the film. Based on the above, I believe it necessary to delete the image until its origin is clarified, and use more commonly used original free posters (or their derivatives) to illustrate the article. — Ирука¹³ 14:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring specifically to the image background image, not the text. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2025 (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:Ex-wife by Ursula Parrott 1929.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 by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the image caption in the article, this is the McNally Editions book jacket. It further states that the McNally Editions edition is from 2023. If this art is different from the original 1929 art, then the file violates WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable by the original 1929 book cover. Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too bad you have a problem. You're welcome to find a free image if you like. This image doesn't violate NFCC#1 because it is non-free, is licensed, and as such has been appropriately downloaded. I would appreciate you not trying to make extra work for another editor, such as me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you think a free image exists somewhere then it is up to you to prove it. The WP:ONUS is on you. I don't see how you are allowed to make up a specious rationale that such an image exists, when you yourself don't know if that is the case. And most likely one doesn't exist because this book was out of print for close to 100 years before it was rediscovered.
According to the Paris Review reference in this article [2]: "It’s been nearly a century since Ex-Wife had its flash of fame (the book sold more than one hundred thousand copies in its first year)..." So someone rediscovered it, and the publisher, McNally Editions re-published it, in 2023.
Here is what Guardian reference says [3]: "Reissued after a century, this lively, funny and harrowing debut follows a divorcee torn between sexual liberation and the compromised ‘safety’ of marriage in the 1920s." Also, if you notice all the references, which are book reviews, are dated 2023. That is because that is the year this novel was re-published. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, when it comes to non-free content, the "onus" actually is on the person wanting to use the content to establish a consensus that the use in question meets relevant policy, as explained in WP:NFCCE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misunderstanding how WP:NFCC#1 works. I just need to point out that a free image can be created. In this case, there is a 1929 edition which meets {{PD-1923}}, so someone could scan the cover of the 1929 edition and use that as replacement for your picture of the 2023 edition. The image is therefore replaceable and fails WP:NFCC#1.

It is a different thing if the 1929 and 2023 editions use the same cover art, but from the information provided, it is not possible to tell if that is the case, so we have to assume that it is a different cover. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote above. This book went out of print about 95 to 100 years ago. And I have added links to evidence that show that it went out of print that long ago. It has been re-published with a 2023 book cover from the publisher. There is no proof that a 1929 book cover exists. So you are basing your assertions on pure speculation.

It sounds like you're hoping someone comes along someday, and reads this article, and says "Hey, I have a 1929 book cover. I think I'll scan it and download it to this article." It is just not likely. That person would not only have to read the article, but would have to be a Wikipedia volunteer editor, and on top of that be aware of this issue that we are talking about.

That is a lot of random occurrences just to satisfy phantom imaginings. And by phantom imaginings I mean that, again, the existence of a 1929 book cover that has not been re-published for nearly 100 years is speculative at best. This might be the epitome of being between a rock and a hard place - I don't know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a non-free cover because a free 95-year-old cover exists is very similar to deleting a non-free photo of a person because the person is still alive. In the book case, you have to find a copy from 1929 and scan it. In the person case, you have to locate the person and take a photo. See WP:NFC#UUI §1 for the living person case. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seem to have been several different covers used for reprints of this book over the years (at least according to Google images); so, it's not clear why this particular one from 2023 needs to be used per WP:FREER or WP:NFC#CS, when perhaps another one that is no longer encumbered by copyright (even if not the original one) could exist and be used instead. This article from The New York Times is about the same author, right? It discusses what seems to be the same book, but shows a completely different cover published by Dell Publishing. If that's really the same book, then maybe that cover art could be used instead, even as non-free if necessary. This webiste shows not only the file being discussed here and the cover shown in the NYT article, but also shows another different cover. This Amazon listing shows yet a different cover that would most likely be {{PD-logo}} because it's nothing more than text even if it wasn't published in 1930. So, it's pretty hard to justify the non-free use of this particular 2023 book cover when there appears to have been several other covers used for the same book over the years, not just from a non-free content use standpoint but also from an encyclopedic standpoint. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, free covers exist. Both: "1929" and "PD-logo". Second, according to WP:BOOKCOVER, the first edition cover should be used. No substantial evidence was provided to use the 2023 cover. — Ирука¹³ 13:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Where is the free cover? Buffs (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

I see what you're saying upon reading Marchjuly's comments. WP:BOOKCOVER states in its entirety (emphasis mine) "First edition covers are preferred. If a first edition public domain image of the book cover exists, it should be used instead of the non-free image of a contemporary edition. Non-free book covers should be used if and only if there exist no free book covers of any earlier edition.". Ergo, we need to determine whether this cover is what is on the first edition. If we cannot, this Amazon listing should be used. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a free version of the 1929 edition exists, it should be used, but I see no evidence as to what the 1929 cover looks like or that it even exists AND substantially differs. You cannot claim that a free version exists and, at the same time, say "well, I can't find it, but it's around". Should the first edition cover be produced, I would change my !vote to delete. Buffs (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see above. Delete Free alternatives exist in alignment with policy/guidelines and should be used. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2025 (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:4HTexas.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: No consensus * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This image is copyrighted. If you click on the source link you will see it goes to the My Plates.com website. And a short search through their site reveals this [4] : "The information, graphics, text and other content of this website are owned by My Plates, or its licensors, and are protected by US and international copyright law. The Website Terms state the terms of your permitted use of the My Plates website... MY PLATES and the MY PLATES logo are trademarks of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.."

I am guessing the other images regarding license plates in this "Files for Discussion" page are also copyrighted. Even if it is the Department of Revenue of a given state, such as the plate below [5]. Whoever downloaded these images needed to check for copyright information before downloading these images onto Wikipedia. Hopefully, this is not going to turn out to be a big problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2 and Steve Quinn: Based on this query on my talk page from user:Buffs, I have reverted the G12 deletion, and the close of this FFD. You may wish to review the anew information and factor that into any reconsideraiton of your opinion in this FFD. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The 4H clover symbol and Texas state flag elements are the only items of complexity and both are PD. The composition is not complex enough to create a new copyright so this plate should be kept and re-licensed as PD. -- Whpq (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- On your talk page, there was a link to a copy of the clover symbol on Commons. I nominated it for deletion there as there is no evidence that it is a U.S. government work, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:4H Emblem.svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Stefan2:
  1. If an image tag is incorrect, please just fix them or ask for help. Excessive nominations for deletions are counterproductive.
  2. A simple google search for "4H logo history" yields loads of history pretty quickly (as you'd expect for such a prominent logo). Now it's "ownership" is a little complicated. To paraphrase from the first search result: This emblem is somewhat unique and federally protected under 18 U.S.C. 707 which gives it protection that supersedes the limited authorities of both a trademark and a copyright. The Secretary of Agriculture is given responsibility and stewardship for it at the direct request of the U.S. Congress similar to the U.S. Presidential Seal, and Smokey Bear.
  3. Despite protections under trademarks and being an official US emblem, it is still PD as it was first used in 1908 and predates modern copyright protections. Like any trademarked image, it still has other limited protections. Buffs (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unknown status of a photograph of a 3D object (plate). — Ирука¹³ 23:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated elsewhere, the outline of a license plate is de minimis and is solely utilitarian in nature and does not satisfy copyright requirements. Buffs (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per whpq, et al. Buffs (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2025 (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:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment someone needs to check if this image and the other ones below, in this discussion, are copyrighted. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2025 (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:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2025 (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:AirForceTexPlate.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: keep. asilvering (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image is copyrighted and is not free in any form. It is copyrighted by My Plates.com. See the above related discussion here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the elements of the plate are free of copyright and is in the public domain (PD). The State of Texas is a common logo without a copyright claim and used as early as the late 1800s. "TEXAS" cannot be copyrighted. The Air Force Association logo is the Hap Arnold wings (a PD image) with 3 letters attached: AFA + the AFA does not claim copyright and would have predated modern copyright laws without proper registration, it too is PD. Though these plates are available at My Plates.com and they assert a copyright, the copyright would be owned by the State of Texas via DMV, if it applied. As this design is made of Public Domain elements arranged solely in a utilitarian manner as proscribed by law, it is not copyrightable and therefore is in the public domain. Buffs (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted licensing tags accordingly. Buffs (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that the logo 'predates modern copyright laws' but provided no evidence that the log is old enough to be in the public domain. Therefore, it has to be assumed that the logo is copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go over each component of the logo:

The Hap Arnold Wings are PD by multiple means. First, they are a product of the US Gov't. This symbol was widely used in WWII and earlier without copyright markings and without a registry (as was both common in that era and required by US law).

The only thing that has been added are the letters AFA and a circle, which are insufficient to attain copyright. While the logo does enjoy trademark protections, and while that does does have some restrictions, trademark does not carry the weight of copyright and it is PD for Wikipedia purposes. Buffs (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, they are a product of the US Gov't. This information wasn't provided by the uploader and so wasn't known to me until you informed me. The licence plate only mentions the Air Force Association, which is a redirect to Air & Space Forces Association, which has a non-free logo in the main infobox and isn't presented as a part of the government. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look just a little lower on that page and you'll find the black and white version of this logo.

I didn't say the whole logo was a product of the US Gov't. I said the Hap Arnold wings were. That is a component of this logo. The rest is just 3 letters and a circle. If those alone cannot sustain a copyright on their own, their addition to a PD image cannot either as they do not pass the threshold of originality (I explained this above)

That's why I clarified it.

Just because they now have a new logo (I think arguably it's PD too as it's made entirely out of geometric shapes and PD images) doesn't mean anything about THIS logo. Let's stay on point here. You're conflating LOTS of things. Buffs (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~: I just want to remind that this is a photo of a three-dimensional object, which has an additional photographer's license. Delete this and all similar images containing this plate. — Ирука¹³ 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Ирука¹³ 09:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a photo of a 3D object. Compare the plate to File:AdoptBeachTexPlate.png. Note that the lighting and other artifacts are precisely the same on the edge. Only the center of the image is different and is a 2D image superimposed onto the plate. Ergo, this is not a photo of a 3D object. However, even if the plate itself was not duplicate in each photo, its purpose is completely utilitarian and, therefore, does not meet the burden of creativity necessary for a copyright. Buffs (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you argue the plate makes it copyrightable (which I contend alone cannot attain copyright as its function is completely utilitarian, not artistic), we can crop out the plate outline and just use the center. Buffs (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like many others, this license plate has prominent protrusions that reflect light in an original way, and holes. It is a three-dimensional object.

The empty plate itself is not an object of copyright, I have never said otherwise. — Ирука¹³ 14:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find Buffs' articulation of the copyright status more convincing here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-) Buffs (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2025 (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:AmeriloveTexPlate.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 as G12 by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image is copyrighted and is not free in any form. It is copyrighted by My Plates.com. See the above related discussion here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2025 (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:AmateurRadAZ.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (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:AnimalFriendTeXPlate.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, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image is copyrighted and is not free in any form. It is copyrighted by My Plates.com. See the above related discussion here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the utilitarian aspects of license plates need to be considered, the original image is copyrightable and, unless they can show where the photo was licensed from, it is copyrightable. This aspect is acknowledged by the Governor. We need to consider such licenses, trademarks, and copyrights on the elements of the license plates that have protections. Beyond that, the license plate is utilitarian in nature and a faithful reproduction cannot be considered copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2025 (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:AppalachianTN.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (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:Acplate.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (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:AdoptBeachTexPlate.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, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been created at state level, not at federal level. Therefore, {{PD-USGov}} can't be used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the utilitarian aspects of license plates need to be considered, the original image is copyrightable and, unless they can show where the photo was licensed from, it is copyrightable. This aspect is acknowledged by the Governor. We need to consider such licenses, trademarks, and copyrights on the elements of the license plates that have protections. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2025 (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:Todd Snyder Rockefeller Center.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder is JOHN KEON PHOTO (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:10, 16 January 2025 (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.