Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 September 3: Difference between revisions

File:1948 Hatzic Pumphouse Breach.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• As explained in the previous PUF discussion, this photo is copyrighted in USA as it was taken less than 50 years before 1996. This should never have been restored. Stefan2 (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the source was taken from a newspaper would that make any difference? The big question is; Where was it published in the US & Whom has the copyright in the US? It is PD in Canada so it would seem to me that the burden of proof that it is not PD, would be on providing evidence to the contrary. The Google image search I have done does not show any US sites having this picture, a UK and a few Oriental speaking sites do, but no US. (link to previous PUF conversation....which really wasn't a discussion) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 13:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rules are very simple:
      1. Published in Canada without copyright notice or renewal, copyright already expired in Canada by 1 January 1996: PD in USA
      2. Published in Canada without copyright notice or renewal, published in USA within 30 days after first publication in Canada: PD in USA
      3. Published in Canada, not published in USA within 30 days after first publication in Canada, copyright not yet expired in Canada by 1 January 1996: copyrighted in USA unless published before 1923

These rules are explained at WP:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test and {{Non-free in US}}. See also Commons:COM:URAA for a lot of text on the matter. The copyright expired in Canada in 1999 which was unfortunately three years too late, so it falls in the third category (copyrighted in USA, unless you can dig up a US publication within 30 days after publication in the Canadian newspaper). The copyright holder in USA is whoever happened to be the copyright holder in Canada on 1 January 1996, unless that person has since transferred his US rights to someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • But wouldn't that all be moot as, if is claimed, a gov't employee (of Natural Resources Canada) produced the picture for public and scientific reasons ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would the image's purpose affect anything? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • 17 U.S.C. § 105 allows the use of US gov't employees pictures, would it not 'by spirit' then also extend to employees of other governments?

File:Queenelizabethbeforeandafter.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Top photo is unfree in USA as it wasn't taken before 1946. Stefan2 (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert George .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert George .jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair use could be claimed in the US due to the subject being dead. The image is certainly public domain in Australia due to crown copyright expiry and old photograph provisions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair use could possibly be claimed if no published free images (likely previous to this one) of him exist -- Nbound (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use is no option in the article Governor of South Australia, at least. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SNDP Edu Fund.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unfree in USA as it wasn't published before 1941. Stefan2 (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isah Bala Mukhtar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mukhtar Isah Bala.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SFSD lo-res patch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patch of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department.png. Not eligible for F8 as the licence isn't "beyond reasonable doubt" as stated at WP:CSD#F8. Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [as left on the page of the user who tagged the image in the first place; I'd participate more, but I have a gigantic brief to write] ~~You know, I don't really recall where exactly that image came from; it's been over six years since I uploaded it. I would agree that whoever put the public domain template on the image page did so in error, because the image is effectively a trademark/logo. The fair-use rationale that accompanied my initial upload of the image was valid at the time. I'm not sure what has changed in the meantime (I've been busy with law school and, of late, working for the US Army Corps of Engineers), but I'm sure that if you know the current state of the rules, you can bring the original fair-use rationale up to modern standards. As for the source, why not just use the logo's owner, whose name appears prominently in the image itself [edit:], for this appears to be a "slavish reproduction" in the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. sense?

I'll leave this in your court, so fix the image-attribute template if you please. Just remember, the image enhances the Encyclopedia, and the readers should not be deprived of the value it provides if there is any valid justification for it to stay. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 13:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if fair use is now claimed, so the list here is no longer needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mega POV at ilight Marina Bay 2012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Google Images suggests that this previously was uploaded as Commons:File:Mega POV by Teddy Los.jpg and deleted due to lack of evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gon Kirin during the day.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Google Images suggests that this previously was uploaded as Commons:File:Gonkirin3.jpg and deleted due to lack of evidence of permission. Stefan2 (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gon Kirin at night.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No freedom of panorama in USA. It also seems that the photo was posted elsewhere before uploading it here; see http://www3.traxontechnologies.com/us/showcase/showcase_details/14036/Gon%20Kiring%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Light%20Dragon%E2%80%9D%20-%20Nevada,%20USA Stefan2 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mubarak Ali Al Sabah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Previously published on Instagram but I can only find Instagram's thumbnail of the image: http://images.ak.instagram.com/profiles/profile_144195845_75sq_1361690899.jpg Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael Napier Brown.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that permission was given by the subject of the photo, but there is no evidence of this. Additionally, this doesn't look like a self-shot, so the subject of the photo is unlikely to be authorised to grant any permission. Stefan2 (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken by his wife and I have emails from him giving permission for its use. I can get him to verify this to whoever it needs to be verified to. Jack1956 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Noah Miller Glatfelter 1910.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that this is a scan of a family photograph. Family photographs are usually unpublished, so the claim about public domain status due to pre-1923 publication is dubious. Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julian Wruck Australian Discus Thrower.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Julian Wruck 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Same photo with different copyright information. Only one of them can have correct information, unclear which. Not eligible for F1 due to minor colour differences. Stefan2 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of Brigadier Maurice G.Archer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of permission for {{PD-author}}.

No evidence that the photographer died more than 50 years ago as required by the other template. Besides, the copyright didn't expire because of age in Canada until after 1996, so this was restored by URAA. Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]