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: kept on Commons. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Nick Pickard.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nick Pickard.jpg Magog the Ogre ( talk) 01:20, 26 October 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Flying Yankee at Portland Union Sataion.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of File:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg, which is non-free. This image is most likely also non-free due to its status as a derivative work. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 20:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Not a "Derivative" work: This work is an original digital illustration which I created depicting a scene similar in subject, but not at all identical, to one also shown in an existing photograph. This illustration does NOT include any elements taken from that or any other photograph, but It is instead an original, personal artistic interpretation by its author of an historic real life scene which was available to be freely viewed by the public. No details in this illustration match those in any other existing image, it does not in any way compete with the copyright of any other work, and it does not include any copyrighted or "non-free" material from any other work. As the sole creator (and thus copyright holder) of this original creative work, I have freely licensed it to WP and thereby placed it irrevocably in the Public Domain. Centpacrr ( talk) 21:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply

As much as you want me to go there with you, I can't go there with you in this case. Despite your contentions, if you look at the two images side by side, a number of details in both photos match. The first door on the train (after the side sign) is near-centered on both images. The roof on the building at the far left meets the train windows at the same location and at the same height. Likewise, the vehicle visible behind the train (under the structure with the pointed roof) is identical in both shots. If this were actually an original illustration as you claim, or even based on a different photo, these details would not match perfectly with the original photo, and the train and the other vehicle would be in slightly different positions. This is a situation very similar to the Barack Obama "Hope" poster, where the illustration is based on an AP photo (see #Origin and copyright issues in that article). The fact that it was based on an AP photo makes it a derivative work of the AP photo. Same thing in this case. The photo is obviously a derivative work of the non-free photo. The fact that you copied the photo and used a program to make it appear like watercolor is clever, but it does make it a derivative work. The fact that you did not credit the original author, and put a GFDL and CC tag on it where the original work was not so licensed, makes this a copyright violation. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid your comparisons of the images are faulty. The representation of the train set in my image is completely different than in the photograph in many aspects. For instance the center door of the lead unit in the photograph is not half open but completely closed whereas the door in my digital illustration is partially open. The front of the train set in my image covers more of the section house at the left then it does in the photograph. There is no platform running across the tracks in my image and no switch stand next to the lead unit. There is an REA cart on the platform near the rear of the train set in the photograph, there is no cart in my image. The representation of the clock tower in my illustration is very different. The right front ventilation window in my image is open while it is closed in the photograph. There are no fish plates visible in my image whereas there are many in the photograph. The angle and perspective of the tracks are quite different in the two images as are the reflections in the windows. The photograph is black and white, my image is colorized. (See here for additional side-by-side comparison of differences connected by arrows.) An overlay of the two images will also reveal that they do not match as their aspect ratios are also different. While both images are of essentially the same subject, they are also very different and each is an original work in its own right. My illustration does not meet the derivative "test" of the Obama "Hope" poster as my image differs from the photograph in almost every detail. Centpacrr ( talk) 07:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

So you cropped the image and photoshopped a few elements out before applying the image filter. Doesn't make this any less of a copyright infringement. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 13:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

No, that is not how my original illustration was created at all. None of the major elements of my illustration (train set, clock tower, station structures, tracks, etc) described above were "derived" or came from the Perry photograph, but instead are my own digitally created interpretations of materials from a wide variety other sources in the Public Domain and/or are my own similarly digitally created original graphic elements. These diverse elements were then digitally interpreted, original new elements were created and applied, and then all assembled and arranged to create the final illustration employing the Perry image only as a guide in establishing an appropriate perspective and relationship among them.

While the resulting illustration depicts the same subject as the Perry photograph (which is exactly what it is intended to do), its major elements all came from elsewhere and/or are my own original digital creations. While they may appear to you on casual viewing to be the same as in the Perry image, upon closer inspection you will find that they clearly are not. The creative processes used to design and create this new original illustration from scratch are far more sophisticated and complex then you apparently realize or understand, but it certainly was not, as you have incorrectly assumed, that I simply "...cropped the [Perry] image and photoshopped a few elements out before applying the image filter." It is instead a new original illustration of a "real life" (as opposed to one "created" by the photographer) scene which required the creative application of several hundred steps to build and which "used" the Perry photograph only as a guide or "road map" to establish a correct visual perspective among its major elements. The result of this process is an original new image which is not a "derivative" work of the Perry photograph or any other non-free photograph, image, or illustration. Centpacrr ( talk) 14:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Seems we're never going to agree on this. You say it's not a derivative work, and I say it is. No sense in wasting my time continuing this argument when I've said all that needs to be said about it. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Not a "Derivative" work: With respect, your continued claim that this is a non-free "derivative work" is based on false assumptions as to both what the various sources of the elements that make up this original illustration are, and an apparent lack of understanding of the complex techniques and digital processes employed to create this illustration which constitutes my own original artistic interpretation of the subject in a form not copied or derived from any non free work(s). I have done my best to explain all of this to you above and elsewhere so I really don't know what else I can do to make it any clearer except to say again that this is not and "unfree file" but is instead one with I have personally created and am thus free to license for use on WP in any way I decide to. (Click here to view a detailed "side by side"comparison of some of the differences between the 1936 "Perry" photograph and non derivative 2011 digital "watercolor" illustration.) Res ipsa loquitur. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:44, 27 October 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Shaheer 123.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Considering the uploader's history this image is unlike to be owned by the uploader. Eeekster ( talk) 22:58, 26 October 2011 (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: Keep.- FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:127th Pennsylvania Volunteer Monument in Fredericksburg National Cemetery.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Freedom of panorama ( WP:FOP) does not apply to memorials erected post 1978 (in USA) - for full explanation see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States (final paragraph of USA section)  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• I tracked down some details about this monument. It was erected by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and dedicated on June 26, 1906. Since it was first published (permanent public display is considered "published") before 1923 the monument itself is in the public domain. I've updated the image summary to reflect this information. — RP88 ^{( talk)} 09:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• If that is the case, then it's OK - I nominated it because the date in the description was "August 2010"  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - but per none of the reasons above.
  
  First, regarding statues as "published": from Publication: "Australia and the UK (as the U.S.) do not have [an exemption for erected statues] and generally require the distribution of copies necessary for publication. In the case of sculptures, the copies must be even three-dimensional." I've heard people on Commons say otherwise due to the Berne convention, but I doubt that. Anyway, this document shows that unpublished work for corporate authorship (e.g., the state of Pennsylvania) is free 120 years from creation.
  
  Anyway, though, I think there is nothing copyrightable about that work. It is just too simple: {{ PD-shape}}. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 11:04, 10 November 2011 (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: marked fair use Magog the Ogre ( talk) 10:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:130 Dark Avenger costume design 2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• It's a photo of someone else's design ( Olga Lehmann). Uploader long gone (no point in CSD:F11). Not too sure how this sits with US copyright.  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:28, 26 October 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:14th Zouaves.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder.  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • So I took the photograph. What is its status? Does this mean that every photo that was ever taken of Manneken Pis cannot be on Wiki either? Something is wrong with this interpretation. One is left with the interpretation that such laws are meant to protect the original artist's rights -- but when the work of art is a small bas-relief on a memorial plaque intended to be seen freely by the public (installed on a bridge), one finds it difficult to believe that any sort of infringement is occurring. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 04:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • A fuller explanation of Belgium's position can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium, since the web page said erected after the war, we can assume 1945 as earliest. Therefore 1945+70 = 2015 is the earliest year for copyright expiry.  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:10, 28 October 2011 (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: kept - even if this were not old, {{ FoP-USonly}} might apply, as this appears to be an architectural work more than artistic IMHO. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 10:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:184 불국사 다보탑.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photos of of works permanently installed in public places in South Korea are non-commercial only.  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• The stone pagoda Dabotap is believed to have been built in 751, and in South Korea copyright expires 50 years after the death of the last surviving creator. We can safely assume that the pagoda is in the public domain. — RP88 ^{( talk)} 09:25, 29 October 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

File:1995 Tony Coe.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Permission is The JAZZPAR Prize (Official Website). Photos can ONLY be published free of charge if a reference to The JAZZPAR Project and the photographer's and the artist's names are shown. - if it can only be used "free of charge" then that equates to Non-Commercial, and is therefore not suitable.  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply

  I don't think that's what free of charge means. I think it means you can use it free of charge (to you, the publisher, it is free) if you publish it with proper attribution. I find far more troublesome the idea that the site/author must be shown (it's questionable whether this fits that description, as one must click on images on Wikimedia projects in order to view history information (should the licensing information be cropped). It could go either way. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 10:50, 10 November 2011 (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.