Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 October 1

October 1

File:Rhodesia ten shillings 1968.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the {{PD-Zimbabwe}} template,

a Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. As this was published after 1946, it is not in the public domain in the United States despite it being in the public domain in Zimbabwe, so this file should be deleted or marked as non-free in line with WP:NUSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Copyright in Zimbabwean notes expired when they were demonetized; see c:Commons:Currency#Zimbabwe. This happened before 1996, at the latest with independence in 1980. Felix QW (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been looking into this, and I haven't been able to find any verifiable info about the copyrights of the Rhodesian bills being transferred to Zimbabwe. Can you provide a source/citation that confirms your assumption? If not, then these are probably non-free per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Currency -FASTILY 23:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure I understand your point; Zimbabwe is the legal successor of Southern Rhodesia, the place of origin of the banknotes. So the "source country" would be Zimbabwe. Or is your question whether since Rhodesian independence was not recognised, the country of origin would be considered to be the UK instead?

In case the question was about who the copyright holder would be, Southern Rhodesia had unilaterally declared independence in 1965. So the notes under discussion were not issued by the Bank of England but by the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia, the predecessor to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Felix QW (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that simple. Rhodesia is the successor state to Southern Rhodesia, which was originally a British colony. The bills appear to depict Elizabeth II, which strongly implies that the bills were created by the UK (or at least an entity related to it). In other words, for Zimbabwe to own the copyrights, the copyright would have had to been transferred from the UK -> Southern Rhodesia -> Rhodesia -> Zimbabwe. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of being incorrect, but I do think this is a situation of citation needed. Could you please provide some definitive proof/documentation that Zimbabwe owns the copyrights? I've spent some time to research/verify this myself, but come up empty handed thus far. -FASTILY 19:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bills depict Elizabeth II since from 1965-70 Rhodesia considered itself an independent kingdom with the Queen as its head of state.

I am not sure that "owning" the copyright is the correct question to ask - the question is rather which country is considered the "source country" as that governs the copyright law to be considered. In this case, the notes were printed at the behest of the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia and, since a court injunction prevented the German printers Giesecke und Devrient from delivering to Rhodesia, they were even printed locally, and then eventually brought into circulation there. So I cannot see by which argument the source country could not be Rhodesia, whose successor state is Zimbabwe. Felix QW (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above, you make the claim that the copyright on these bills is expired, so yes, it absolutely matters who owns (or formerly owned) the copyright. Again, could you please provide a reliable source/citation which states that the bills are indeed PD? -FASTILY 23:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As often in copyright questions, I don't have a reliable source referring precisely to these particular banknotes.

However, I do think that the situation is quite clear:

1. The banknotes were printed, issued and used in Rhodesia, the successor of which state is Zimbabwe.

2. The banknotes were issued by the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia, which was merely renamed to Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe in 1979.

Section 50 of the Copyright Act 1966, which is in fact an act of the Rhodesian parliament that entered force on 1 January 1967, states that legal tender issued by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (= Reserve Bank of Rhodesia) enters public domain when it is demonetised. That this also applies to pre-independence banknotes, and particularly to the ones dealt with here, is particularly clear since Article 50 explicitly covers banknotes issuedbefore, on or after the appointed date, where theappointed date is specified in Section 2 of said act always to refer to 1 January 1967. This cannot refer to anything but the banknotes under discussion, since the state had not been independent as the state of Zimbabwe until 1979/80. Felix QW (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe operates under the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act, Chapter 22: 15 of 1964. Under Part II, 4 it states "The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe established by the repealed Act shall continue in existence as a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its own name and, subject to this Act, of performing all acts that bodies corporate may by law perform." which supports Felix QW's position that the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe as a legal entity is a continuation of the previous reserve bank along with its powers and duties. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2022 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Spirit 5-01-07.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: relisted on 2022 October 10. FASTILY 20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spirit 5-01-07.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Stern (Small) 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Launch (Small).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Coming about (Small).jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads of different sizes, low quality. File:SpiritofSClj.jpg definitely isn't an own work. Doubtful licensing. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2022 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Spirit stern.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads of different sizes, low quality. File:SpiritofSClj.jpg definitely isn't an own work. Doubtful licensing. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2022 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bow3.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads of different sizes, low quality. File:SpiritofSClj.jpg definitely isn't an own work. Doubtful licensing. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2022 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SpiritofSClj.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly cropped from a much larger file per Tineye search result where larger files exists. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:31, 1 October 2022 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Painting of Smorenberg.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is too low to be educationally useful. Also, WP:NOTWEBHOST. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2022 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bloc Party Truth.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo not suitable for Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2022 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.