Commons:Deletion requests/File:45637 Windward Islands' remains.png

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.

File:45637 Windward Islands' remains.png

This file was initially tagged by Redrose64 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo is subject to copyright and has been published previously. The claim of "own work" is blatantly false, since the photograph depicts the remains of a locomotive wrecked in 1952 and scrapped later that year.

Converting to DR for discussion since this photograph is from 1952. Abzeronow (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim of "own work" is blatantly false, as is the use of CC BY-SA 4.0, a license which did not exist when this photo was first published. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have identified the source of the photograph, it is photo 5 on page 26 of https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Harrow001.pdf#page=26 The author of the document is Lt-Col G.R.S. Wilson, Royal Engineers; there is no separate credit for the photograph. The document is Crown Copyright Reserved, published 1953 by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 11:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your through research, Redrose64 Keep as PD-UKGov. I'll edit the file accordingly so it's properly sourced. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I corrected the license to "PD-UK-unknown". When you scan an existing image, the scan is your "own work", even though it doesn't transfer the original copyright to you. Also your nomination is already your vote, so please do not double vote. --RAN (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): "Own work" relates to who took the original photograph, not who scanned it, see Commons:Own work. Also, who has double-voted? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 15:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RAN was merely trying to articulate what the newbie uploader might have been thinking. I have messaged the uploader about how we define "own work" since they had only been here a week and I didn't want the uploader to take the DRs are being BITEy. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That carries the weight of an essay. I agree uploaders should not declare a scan/photo/download as their own work, I want to see data on the original work. Nor should it be used as a rationale for deletion. The Bridgeman court case is not universally recognized outside the US. So far only the UK and Australia have similar case law. Our own template Template:Art Photo, used when you scan/rephotograph an artwork, lets you declare an image of an image, as your own work, because copyright jurisdictions outside of the US may demand credit to the scanner/photographer. --RAN (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - URAA applies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Restored. Abzeronow pointed out that URAA does not apply to PD-UKGov. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]