{{subst:delete2|image=File:Churchill and Brendan Bracken 1940.jpg|reason=This is a tricky one that I am not certain requires deletion. However, I brought it here for discussion to talk through the various issues. The image has been uploaded with a licence claiming authorship by the US Government but the source link is a direct link to an unrelated jpg file on the Irish Times website. The uploader's talk page is filled with copyvio notices and previous discussions mention that they have given direct links to files on other uploads, which rob the uploads of context. I don't think we can count the uploader as reliable here. Next, a search online for this colour photo finds a larger black and white version at Getty Images. Our colour version shows the subjects in the same position, with the same shadows and facial expressions. I suspect this colour version is a crop from the same source negative as the Getty Image. The Getty Image is from their Hulton Archive, credited to Central Press and claimed to still be in copyright; the photographer is named as "Stringer" (a term for a freelance photographer). It is unclear whether the identity of "Stringer" is known in this case. Central Press is likely a reference to en:Central News Agency (London); "Central News" appears to be a popular and generic name for journalism businesses (there are 9 current companies registered in the UK with that name) so it is hard to sift out what relates to which organisation, but I think this record at National Archives showing the 19th century business shutting down in 1980 is the right one. Assuming that the London based Central News is the right one, it operated in a similar manner to Reuters in that it collected stories and sold them to media outlets. That suggests there could be multiple countries of first publication (as determined through the Berne convention's rule of simultaneous publication). So we have a possibly anonymous creation (though there may be a record of who "Stringer" was in this case) with unclear place of first publication (or simultaneous publication). A further complication is whether this is a contemporary colour photograph that was also produced in black and white (for the version at Getty Images) or if it is a more recent colourisation. If it has been colourised, that would have produced a derivative copyright. If we assume that the original work is anonymous, that it was taken using colour film (no derivative colourisation) and that it was first published in the UK in 1940, I think the UK copyright would have been expected to have expired after 50 years in 1990. However, I think the copyright period for anonymous works was extended to 70 years in 1989 (though I am not sure which side this image landed on - did it expire before the 20 year extension came into effect?). However, the UK copyright for a published anonymous work should have expired by 2010, at the latest. US copyright is more tricky; was it simultaneuously published in the US within 30 days of original publication? If so, then normal US copyright rules apply. If not, then the copyright may have been restored if the image wasn't PD in the UK in 1996. Any thoughts on this one?}} ~~~~