Keep. While I cannot find examples of these three particular character drawings in vintage Red Barn advertisements and merchandise, the vast majority of contemporary pieces with these three characters bear no copyright notice. It should be safe to keep these per {{PD-US-no notice}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Google Translated as "There is no case in Korea where a lawsuit has been filed regarding the freedom of panoramas, even to simple hospital buildings, and there will never be one. If overly strict regulations are applied to photo materials related to Korea, it is clear that there will be no Koreans left to participate in the Wikimedia movement.")
@Trainholic: sorry, but the law is the law, even if it is harsh. Why don't you all convince the Korean legislature to remove the fourth condition at Article 35(2), if you don't want to have more photos of Korea be deleted from the site? Any non-commercial restriction like that is not compatible with commercial licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons. It is not a loss for Wikimedia Commons if there are fewer (or no more) Koreans left to contribute here though; Wikimedia Commons survived even if there is limited coverage of many countries because of those countries not allowing complete or commercial Freedom of Panorama. Best example is the United Arab Emirates: it is not properly represented here as more than 50% of UAE is of buildings whose architects haven't died for more than 70 years (like Burj Khalifa), but still Commons survived. It is the initiative of Wikimedia Korea to change the copyright law of Korea – to entirely remove the fourth condition of Article 35(2). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)22:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, and it doesn't seem easy. I do know that these really change rarely and the design is clearly not modern, but it appears this needs some book to verify the age. There are books which describe the origins of these cards, but that means searching :-( PaterMcFly (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I do not think it is de minimis here. As it is being used on English Wikipedia about the tower (added through this edit), the image can be understood as prominently showing the copyrighted work at the upper half of the image. Cropping the work leaves an image not faithful to the context of the file title which the image originally intends to depict. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Probably false claim of free license. The oldest archived copy of the source site, from 2012, does not show anything that indicates the photo as being under a free CC license. The oldest archived copy of the terms of use page, from October 2012, does indicate that materials on the website cannot be modified or used for commercial purposes without permission from the site.
Unreliable public domain claim, no indication that the unidentified photographer has been dead for 70 years, and this is unlikely for a photograph taken in 1950. The absence of a claim to intellectual property is insufficient. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Nkon21 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, found elsewhere on the web prior to upload date Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ymblanter, the painting was done for the British government as part of the Recording Britain scheme and therefore had Crown copyright (rather that it being the copyright of Knight). The HMSO has declared the expiry of Crown copyright worldwide. If you look at any of the Recording Britain paintings on Wikipedia commons they all say the same thing.
Netherzone, could this issue be overcome by putting Victoria and Albert museum in the caption to recognise that they now own it? I’m not sure how else to get the paintings up, would you be able to make any suggestions? Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ymblanter, the painting was done for the British government as part of the Recording Britain scheme and therefore had Crown copyright (rather that it being the copyright of Knight). The HMSO has declared the expiry of Crown copyright worldwide. If you look at any of the Recording Britain paintings on Wikipedia commons they all say the same thing.
Netherzone, could this issue be overcome by putting Victoria and Albert museum in the caption to recognise that they now own it? I’m not sure how else to get the paintings up, would you be able to make any suggestions? Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ymblanter, the painting was done for the British government as part of the Recording Britain scheme and therefore had Crown copyright (rather that it being the copyright of Knight). The HMSO has declared the expiry of Crown copyright worldwide. If you look at any of the Recording Britain paintings on Wikipedia commons they all say the same thing.
Netherzone, could this issue be overcome by putting Victoria and Albert museum in the caption to recognise that they now own it? I’m not sure how else to get the paintings up, would you be able to make any suggestions? Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ymblanter, the painting was done for the British government as part of the Recording Britain scheme and therefore had Crown copyright (rather that it being the copyright of Knight). The HMSO has declared the expiry of Crown copyright worldwide. If you look at any of the Recording Britain paintings on Wikipedia commons they all say the same thing.
Netherzone, could this issue be overcome by putting Victoria and Albert museum in the caption to recognise that they now own it? I’m not sure how else to get the paintings up, would you be able to make any suggestions? Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1929, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal. See this page for further explanation."
do you have any evidence that the work is marked (c) or was renewed ? published in 1961 [1] , and no renewal of magazine [2] it was exhibited at MoMa in 1995, 1996 and 2021.--Frypie (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Oesterreicher12 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: see [3] It appears that the file was uploaded on Commons several months before its publication on Commons. This post mentions 17 December 2023 as posting date whilst the image was uploaded here on 18 August 2023. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. While I cannot find examples of these three particular character drawings in vintage Red Barn advertisements and merchandise, the vast majority of contemporary pieces with these three characters bear no copyright notice. It should be safe to keep these per {{PD-US-no notice}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment It was my wrong decision. I thought it was similar that File:Namsan and Seoul TV tower.jpg which was undeleted per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2021-02#N_Seoul_Tower_photos_were_deleted_without_FoP. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Delete This mascot was made on November, 2006. --Nnkrkrhhdi (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
