The rule of the shorter term is irrelevant here. US copyright law puts it in the public domain since it was published before 1923. There is no reason to delete this picture from the English wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per Prosfilaes. If there is still any question about it's PD status, then keep with a Non-free 2D art tag. It is an important work.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. Public domain in the US. -Nv8200ptalk 02:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 - there is no free image on Ginger Baker. However, if a reader wants to see what the band looked like, they can look at the album covers on the album pages. We don't need to use a photograph that is actively being sold by a photo agency. Just because we are not aware of any available free photographs does not mean that they don't exist or cannot be acquired. ~ BigrTex 00:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rational is not applicable anymore, as the band was active and this proves that there may be free images from this period (concerts) available as well as that they may become active again. Poeloq (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved from March 31 for more time to comment. -Nv8200ptalk 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cream was active in 1966 - 1968. They performed at their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1993, and played about half a dozen "reunion" concerts in May and October of 1995. They are not currently active and there are no plans for them to play together. The creation of a new public domain image of the band would therefore seem to be impractical. For this reason I believe the use of the publicity photo is appropriate for the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a free image in Ginger Baker's article of all three members during their Rock n Roll Hall of Fame induction that could replace this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.234.233 (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2008 (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.
no indication that the LOC actually created this photo, they routinely host thumbnails of images that are not made by them Mangostar (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is now out of date, and newer version is a different format, requiring it be uploaded to a different location. Newer version is located here. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The image is now orphaned. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, suspected copyright violation (I've seen this elsewhere before this date, so doubt "self-made") and is of a low quality. Rudget 17:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine go ahead and delete it, I just thought it was funny is all I don't really care about it.Mutlee (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried to have this speedy deleted because, and I quote, "this image has been made to look like a female bottom part when thumbed". That may be the case though it does take a bit of imagination. Still, no possible hope for encyclopedic use. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image was of a certificate for one John Barrett. Was linked to from John G. Barrett previously, as well as Chuck Norris - but neither showed any real relevance. Currently stricken from those two articles, but otherwise not really notable. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
