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:The Bridge of HMS Canterbury 1918 IWM ART 1311.jpg

No commercial use apparently. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? what! Well your wrong. I have added additional unneeded permissions to the "image file page", you can look here seeing as you seldom answer anyone on your talk page. Broichmore (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is not the date of creation but the IWM non-commercial licence itself (which forbids "to adapt, manipulate, alter, crop or amend the Information in any way that changes the original"; to "sell the Information or use it in a Commercial way by, for example, including it in your own product or application which is used in a Commercial way, or by using it for the purposes of advertising or promoting Commercial products"), making it incompatible with a Creative Commons licence. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I used the license in use as sanctioned by established policy for this category of art. Broichmore (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: Hi again. I don't think if this policy is "sanctionned" by Commons but I'm sure there has been discussions about that matter and I've read this warning by @Fæ: too. Nevertheless I don't quite understand how a licence similar to a CC CC-BY-NC-ND licence may be transformed into a something PD-old-50 one. Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Royal Navy official War artist. Crown property, expired copyright. The IWM has no claim of IP, so the NC restriction is copyfraud and is either deliberately misleading or legal incompetence, take your pick. --Fæ (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep by default. Per this discussion : we can assume that this work is PD in the USA. Nevertheless I'm sceptical that the UK Government is the commissioner. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest doing a little research rather than simply disbelieving the facts. Connard was appointed as a war artist and the works held by the IWM were produced during his time in that role. Try reading a copy of The Times, 15 December 1958, where there is an article explaining this fact which also documents some preliminary sketches for some of the works that were being donated. There are several articles in The Times over two decades during his life, and the British Council has this summary which mentions his official capacity as a war artist. All official war artist works created during WW1 or WW2, were automatically the property of the Ministry of Information and hence the Crown. --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Fae and Patrick. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]