Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 7

May 7[edit]

File:Union Church, Wiscasset, Maine, Smallest Church in the World.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 15:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD on Commons due to lack of copyright notice: c:File:Union Church (Wiscasset, Maine).jpg. Yann (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the case unless the vertical text in the middle or that s-code on the back counts.[1] Then we can delete this version. Noting there are more postcards of the church there, maybe the same applies to them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT How is this possible? My first upload was PD because it was a postcard with no copyright notice. But it was immediately placed for deletion due to editor citing "most certainly copyrighted" and that the uploading editor (me) is bound by burden of proof and another stating that the postcard stated: "Published by Owen Arts Color - Newcastle Maine (Lyman Owens, artist)" which would constitute copyright." So why is it OK for Yann to upload the exact same postcard, with the exact same middle text with publisher on the back, without any information or explanation, as PD - but not me? pinging Marchjuly Maineartists (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: Yes, the burden of proof in on the uploader. In the absence of proof, it is quite sensible to think that the postcard was under a copyright. Fortunately, I found an online copy showing the back and the absence of a copyright notice, therefore proving that the postcard is in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the edithistory, it seems that different editors saw different things. You added a licensing tag stating "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.", where was the evidence for that? Compare the current license, which has a very different text. The speedy deletion tag was GF, I might have done the same thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes, I have checked other postcards from the same source. They all lack a notice. In addition, even if they had a notice, it is improbable that the copyright was renewed, but that's more work to check. Yann (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You being a Commons-admin, I'll take your word for that ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking all of this in stride and with a giant grain of salt. As I have always said, there are WP editors that seem to know how to get around things. One editor can simply "take one's word for it" yet another places all the "burden of proof" on me. I could explain away like Yann, but it would get me nowhere in the eyes of some editors here. So in the future I will be using all of what I have witnessed here and on each of the deleted images (which are all the same, BTW) and the discussion on different forums. What is so curious about all of this, the image actually ended up being uploaded by way of PD. Which is how I initially uploaded it to begin with. Hm. PS My postcard is postmarked 1987. Maineartists (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good point that at least I can't see any indication on the postcard or its back of being from ca. 1958 – it mentions the church having been built in 1958 as if that were a time in the past. We do know that it was pre-1987, but checking for copyright registrations could also be tedious. Felix QW (talk) 06:54, 10 May 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:T. O. Bobe.jpg[edit]

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 ⚡ 02:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File was based on this file on rowiki, which was deleted for no source/licence. Essentially this is an unlicenced file. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:07, 7 May 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.