Image is not Soviet Public Domain, rationale is false. See talkpage for correct attribution edited in by me under IP address 82.29.231.97. — Fluffy99912:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was taken in 1945 and whoever took it won't claim copyright now. That a Polish magazine had found and reprinted it does change the fact, IMHO. It is the only photo in Maus and removing it just because during wars nobody cares about copyright would make WP worse, not better. Pavel Vozenilek17:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes all very interesting guesswork but tell me how the image is soviet PD? Was this image published in CCCP prior to 1950s? If so provide the detail. The copyright holder is, to the best of knowledge so far, that given on the talkpage- the magazine clearly attributes its ownership to someone in Germany. He has the RIGHT to permit copies to be made- copyright. Where is the evidence that uploader wanted to admit where they stole the image from?
"whoever took it won't claim copyright now" you assume the photographer is dead, you misunderstand the concept of copyright, and you presume that the copyright holder identified in the magazine wont care that work he owns is advertised as 'public domain'. An example of the tank is preserved in a Russian museum at this minute so I imagine that no image taken in the period will be suitable to claim a "Fair Use" rationale for either. Fluffy99912:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously public domain. It is a goverment report created by government employees. There was no reason to tag it. --Gbleem23:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is for one reason or another no longer available at USDA. It can be deleted for this reason. Anyway, there are already enough images available on the Commons. JoJan09:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, when uploaded the comment added was "Rename pic to avoid offensive name" as no specific source is provided it is very possible this is an re-upload without history in contrivention of GFDL User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]