August 4
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Legion dragon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Obtained from Mexsport Alx 91 (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User is at CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Md iet. The file is on the Internet in a larger version:
- Page: http://akhbar.mumineen.org/2010/09/23/photos-iftetah-of-qubbah-mubarakah-at-shibam/
- Image: http://media.mumineen.org/archive/photos/akhbar1431/shawwal-15_shibaam-7.jpg
So unless uploader has a good reason I think we should delete. MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lulua Mosque,old.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photo of a photo. No information about who took the original photo or when. Uploader is at CCI so therefore this puf. MGA73 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jon Paul Guilford.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The license ({{PD-Ineligible}}) seems to be inappropriate in this case. Leyo 16:58, 4 August 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Sellers in hospital.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- UPI photo which may be protected by copyright. Library of Congress "In an attempt to determine if UPI registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed. However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office." We hope (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you implying that the requirement for giving notice on the photo was waived for UPI? What you are describing is some new exception possibly being made for UPI. This needs to be explained by more than an ambiguous quote, I would hope.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The back of the photo is not shown at the auction; it may have had notice on the back. I am not implying anything. The quote is what the Library of Congress legal department said regarding UPI photos. We hope (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you implying that the requirement for giving notice on the photo was waived for UPI? What you are describing is some new exception possibly being made for UPI. This needs to be explained by more than an ambiguous quote, I would hope.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you seem to be implying that UPI, beginning 1964, may have begun adding copyrights on the back of their photos. An image search for "UPI Telephoto" shows that their standard photo and description were printed on the front for all years, before and after 1964. The LOC "found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." The U.S. standard for determining if a copyright existed is based on the "reasonable person", not a "remote possibility" standard. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see quite a few images that contradict this practice just in eBay's current crop, including one 1965 image with reservation on back. Whether this reservation or more explicit one appeared on the back of the photo in question, we can't hope to know - since we don't have it. But very plainly UPI Telephoto understood that the back of the image could be used for legal language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the ones you found, I didn't see any that had a copyright notice on the front or back of the photo. My understanding is that the "please credit" language that is often seen on the back of news photos, like the UPI ones, and even movie star photos, is closer to a "business language" rather than a "legal" one. For instance, if UPI takes a news photo, they own the negative. They will naturally want to sell prints from any of their countless news negatives, and when they sell those prints, they will naturally want a credit line in the caption, like "UPI photo."
- I see quite a few images that contradict this practice just in eBay's current crop, including one 1965 image with reservation on back. Whether this reservation or more explicit one appeared on the back of the photo in question, we can't hope to know - since we don't have it. But very plainly UPI Telephoto understood that the back of the image could be used for legal language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you seem to be implying that UPI, beginning 1964, may have begun adding copyrights on the back of their photos. An image search for "UPI Telephoto" shows that their standard photo and description were printed on the front for all years, before and after 1964. The LOC "found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." The U.S. standard for determining if a copyright existed is based on the "reasonable person", not a "remote possibility" standard. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the credit line was part of their agreement with the publishers is confidential information, but the language "please credit" seems meant to at least inform the publisher that if they do include a credit, they will know what it should say. And because such news photos are good for only a few days, and there were tens of thousands taken yearly by their thousands of freelance stringer photographers, UPI would go bankrupt of they had their attorneys file an official copyright registration, with fees, for each one. Nor was there any advantage to doing so for news photos.
- FWIW, I was a freelance news photographer for a number of years and always stamped the back of my photos with a "photo by . . ." Some papers gave me a credit in the bi-line, many did not. I always owned the negatives, got paid for any photos (prints) they bought, never saw any benefit to copyrighting anything, but always felt better towards that paper when the credit line was given. They were doing the photographer a favor, and sometimes the favor was returned by taking special photos for them on request. It was all a purely economic business arrangement, sort of a microcosm of what I assume UPI did. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them don't show the back. The point is that you assert this: "An image search for "UPI Telephoto" shows that their standard photo and description were printed on the front for all years, before and after 1964." It is demonstrably true that UPI Telephoto knew how to use the back for legal language. When you can't see the back, you can't presume the notice is not there. You're guessing. If you have to guess, the image should not be here. Copyright policy says, "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.... You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." You can't verify it by guesswork. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I was a freelance news photographer for a number of years and always stamped the back of my photos with a "photo by . . ." Some papers gave me a credit in the bi-line, many did not. I always owned the negatives, got paid for any photos (prints) they bought, never saw any benefit to copyrighting anything, but always felt better towards that paper when the credit line was given. They were doing the photographer a favor, and sometimes the favor was returned by taking special photos for them on request. It was all a purely economic business arrangement, sort of a microcosm of what I assume UPI did. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We Hope noted that according to the LOC, over a 40-year span from 1923 to 1963, of UPI's news photos, "only a few images were registered for copyright" and none renewed, hence all PD. You found a few examples with some text on the back, although none with a copyright notice. And you're calling my presumption that there was probably no copyright notice on this one from 1964, "guesswork?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof is on the uploader; you've been told this so many times. :/ Policy calls for you to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We Hope noted that according to the LOC, over a 40-year span from 1923 to 1963, of UPI's news photos, "only a few images were registered for copyright" and none renewed, hence all PD. You found a few examples with some text on the back, although none with a copyright notice. And you're calling my presumption that there was probably no copyright notice on this one from 1964, "guesswork?" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of these statements, you aren't able to offer proof it wasn't marked and to explain away the LOC information regarding possible copyrights after 1963 whether registered with the Copyright office or not. We hope (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. But why demand proof for something so extremely uncommon? That creates an "unreasonable standard," the type of analysis that leads to paralysis, a form of anti-boldness--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't understand that I am NOT making those statements--they were made by the LOC legal department. WP:SOUP We hope (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand. However you tagged the image for deletion because "information on its source or copyright status is disputed," and are relying on the quote to support its deletion. If a notice is required, and there is none, what is the dispute? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof there was no notice-back is where markings may have been-not shown at auction. Legal information from LOC that UPI images may be copyrighted after 1963 whether registered or not. WP:SOUP We hope (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nominators rationale - It would be better imo to restrict this users ability to upload any images until this issue is resolved. - well - it seems like it never will be resolved, User:Wikiwatcher1 has a position of if its not clearly copyrighted then its public domain -this position goes against the err on the side of caution approach of en wikipedia and commons - Youreallycan 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not exactly my position. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient information available. The image might be in the public domain, but the copyright status can't be determined without seeing the back of the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.