File:Chamberlaincroptime.jpg - Should not be using the "self" modifier. Creation of such a derivative (a crop) does not generate on new copyright (Bridgeman v. Corel); only the copyright of the source is relevant.
File:Chamberlain.jpg - PD rationale of "looks like it was taken in the 1880s or 1890s and is probably in the public domain because the copyright is expired" is speculation. Creation is not the same as publication. When was this published? What is the factual basis for claiming pre-1.1.1923 publication?
File:Birmingham Council House.jpg - Needs a verifiable source (in the case of user-created images, which this presumably is, that means an explicit assertion of authorship).
File:Churchill 5.jpg - Source is a direct link to the image itself. The LoC says A) the author is "Underwood & Underwood" (not the US government, as purported by the license) and B) that the rights of this image have not been evaluated. What is the basis for claiming this to be PD?Эlcobbolatalk15:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into these, thanks for the input. Could you expand on your objection to the first image? I don't quite get what you are saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it currently has two licenses (self and PD-US-not renewed). The self license adds "I, the copyright holder of this work..." which is untrue because, as the creator of a mere derivative, you hold no copyright. The only copyright on this is the (presumably expired) copyright of the source work. The "self" modifier just needs to be removed. Эlcobbolatalk15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken care of the image concerns I think but as I am not an image expert I will drop a note on Elcobbola's talk page asking him to take another look.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
