The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Bringing this up as the description actually asserts that no publication could be found despite what seems like a diligent search by uploader. This may mean that the image was unpublished (and either still is, if its online upload did not have the consent of the copyright holder, or remained unpublished until recently). In that case, US law would allow for copyright protection until 120 years after it was made. Since this is not a particularly formal shot, it may not even be reasonable to assume that it was made by a photographer and sold to a client, which would constitute publication under old US law. Felix QW ( talk) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
00:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Not actionable/status quo. Given that the logos were never uploaded to Commons and that the thread on Commons failed to yield any additional comments, there isn't anything for us to do here. - FASTILY 10:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I challenged the fact the Paris 2024 Olympics and Paralympics logos are fair use images. These logo (actually same logo but with Olympic and Paralympics symbol difference) is just consisted a simple circle and flame silhouette-like symbols. Therefore, these logos should not allowed to be placed locally at Wikipedia and should be included at Wikimedia Commons instead as a public domain images, assuming that the logo is below Threshold of originality. (Also included the 2024 Paralympics logo below this text for the same reason). 36.68.192.126 ( talk) 00:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The photo is in the public domain in Argentina, but not in the US. — Ирука 13 05:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure what is going on with this file. In particular, I am unclear whether the vectorisation, which may hold its own copyright, is from Harvard University or from a user. In any case, a PNG version is held at Commons as a PD image with what seems to me to be sound reasoning, so this should either be deleted as replaceable, or transferred to Commons if the vectorisation is found to be freely licensed. Felix QW ( talk) 12:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
As the coat of arms is a registered heraldic achievement, I am not sure whether it is appropriate to use a non-free rendering. In my opinion, it could validly be replaced by any rendering of its blazon, which is reproduced in full at our article. I have asked the Graphics lab for such a free rendering; otherwise, one could also use any rendering published by the university before 1978 without a copyright notice or before 1928. Felix QW ( talk) 15:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Procedural close, not actionable; PD file is PD. Questions about its provenance should be directed to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, thanks - FASTILY 10:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a strange discrepanvy between the named author, who died in 1893, and the dating of the image itself to 1927. If the latter dating is correct, the public domain status of the image would have to rely on it having been published at the time of creation; if the image is in fact from the 19th century, it would be in the public domain regardless. Felix QW ( talk) 15:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Although the ultimate source used by the artist is clearly old, there is no indication that the artist drawing this particular rendering of the coat of arms, Mikhail Wadbolski, is dead more than 70 years. In fact, a Google search reveals that he was active in the 1940s. If this mural had also been done in that time, it would presumably still be under copyright in Georgia and the US. The only chance I see to keep this as a public domain image would be if it turned out to have been painted (and published) before 1928 or if it were such a close copy of the medieval original as to have no copyright of its own. Felix QW ( talk) 16:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The image is labelled as being used "courtesy" of Medela AG, Baar, Switzerland, without any explicit free license. It is questionable whether a cast qualifies as a 2D object and therefore whether {{ PD-Art}} applies; as we also exclude coins from that, doubt that it would be covered. The file is orphaned. Felix QW ( talk) 18:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: As determined below, this is not a freely licensed file. No prejudice to restoration if someone can create a valid fair use claim for the file. - FASTILY 10:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Image looks to be first published in Germany in 1934. Even if we are assuming the author of this image was never known and c:Template:PD-anon-70-EU applies, URAA would have still protected this image. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk} 19:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)