Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Bob Bobster on Flickr

The following appear to be OK:

• File:Lange MigratoryWorker1940.jpg
• File:Tattooed sailor aboard the USS New Jersey.jpg
• File:Marvel Rea.jpg
• File:1939 World fair nude exhibition.png

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep almost everything in this list. Maybe best to close the DR, and concentrate on the very few real problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment better to simply keep the request open and solve all problems. --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Martin. "Bob Bobster" is falsely listed as the author of most of these works. Most of these works are falsely listed as being protected by copyright and licensed under {{CC-by}} with the requirement to attribute "Bob Bobster." Many of them lack verifiable source information. Those are real problems. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these files are from the LoC. It does not need a DR to change a licence to PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that. Some of these images are 100+ years old. One of them I noticed is 200 years old. Don't know about other countries but what's the copyright issue on a 100 year old photo that is from the LoC? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW -- FWIW using External links on this individuals flickr-id, produces 72 hits. Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of duplicates in that list. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I think I agree with Pieter Kuiper that we should shelve this request and concentrate on the truly questionable images. I suggest the following images can be moved to the non-problematic list, because they would all qualify for {{PD-Old}}. Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Body art, 1907.jpg - from the National Archives
  • File:Mrs. Stene-Tu a Thlinget belle, 1906.jpg - from the New York Public Library, who claim it was first published in 1906, so it can probably be kept with corrected information.
  • File:Androgyny.Portrait of a boy, ca. 1800.jpg - from the Victoria & Albert Museum
  • File:Georgetown varisty track team 1910.jpg - from the Library of Congress
  • File:Isadora's dancers.jpg - from the Library of Congress, taken by Frances Benjamin Johnston (1864–1952)
  • File:Ruth, Bentley, and Dunn.jpg - from the Library of Congress, taken in 1923
  • File:Olympic postcard.jpg - from the New York Public Library, somehow passed Flickr review without a copyright tag(!)
  • File:RMS Olympic.jpg - the same picture as above
  • File:Roller skates, 1910.jpg - from the Library of Congress
  • File:Titanic survivors on the Carpathia, 1912.jpg - from the Library of Congress

Not pd-old without knowing that the author died 70 years ago! The file you list here, File:Isadora's dancers.jpg, fails your pd-old for 10 years already, be more carefull and accurate please. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete the rest, including the one I uploaded from the stream and the others that were crossed out by the IP (I de-crossed, the flickr account is corrupt and the notices were removed). Note to the IP: removing deletion notices on file pages should not happen until the discussion is over. Hekerui (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My account isn't corrupt. I thought I was signed in but wasn't. The consensus seemed to be on the side of with closing the deletion discussion and dealing with each image individually. As I pointed out in my notations by the images above, there is nothing wrong with those particular images. They are personal images taken by the Flickr user and the evidence is on the user's side. Partiality to same brand and model of camera, times correlating with places and dates user claims to have taken the pictures. They should not be deleted nor included in this discussion. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]