Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:03, 25 April 2020

< April 23	April 25 >

April 24

File:ViewO.jpg

Originally uploaded with the caption "Taken by me" and the US Federal Government tag. Without further clarification from the uploader, it's hard to know what license was intended. (When I first encountered this image I had initially interpreted it as {{PD-self}}, but now I'm not so sure.) Wikiacc (¶) 04:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Terror of War.jpg

Second image nominated by George Ho (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @WGFinley with the reason "This is a copywritten image owned by the Associate Press, it is not Public Domain." FASTILY 04:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found that Toohool's version was attempted but then changed back to the (other) long-standing version ([1][2]). BTW, I added the second image as part of nomination, so we can decide whether to keep one of the versions. George Ho (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least File:TrangBang.jpg based on the permissions note on the file. The note has a redlink; please see File talk:TrangBang.jpg#Permission Obtained from AP. Reh man 06:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PD version, as uploader. The photo was widely published without a copyright notice in 1972 and thereby put into the public domain, as shown on the file description page. A bare assertion of copyright ownership by the AP can't overcome that fact. Note there is also an open FfD discussion on another famous Vietnam War photo in the same situation. Toohool (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you basing your statement that this doesn't have a copyright notice? This image is owned by The Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time, what is the basis of your claim this didn't have a copyright notice? --WGFinley (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: It's based on looking at the newspapers where the photo was published. The file description page includes links to a sampling of newspapers where the image was published with no copyright notice at all. Out of a couple dozen newspapers I found where the photo was published, not a single one had a copyright notice for the photo. Toohool (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a newspaper used it without copyright notice doesn't somehow instantly make it public domain. Were that true, you using it on WP would make it instantly PD, that's not the case. Nick Ut worked for AP for 51 years, they clearly own this image. https://apnews.com/1bc4725ece764fcab754a99b030f0397 --WGFinley (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Copyright notice was required for works published in the U.S. before 1989, and the failure to include one generally placed a work in the public domain. That is why we have a template for this situation, {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Toohool (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. If a license agreement calls for the licensee to include notice, but the licensee fails to do that, that has no effect on copyright status. 17 USC 405(a)(3). We have the template for the situation where, in fact, the notice requirement wasn't met -- not for where Toohool concludes via his naive investigation that it wasn't met.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and the situation's beginning to get serious. There's an enormous body of statue, regulation, and case law on this kind of stuff, and you're running around claiming PD for scores of famous images based on a summary table you saw in some pamphlet. You really think you've made this penetrating analysis everyone else missed? The word sophomoric comes to mind. E Eng 23:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original file. I secured permission from the AP to use this file 15 years ago for Wikipedia. Notwithstanding that, we're making a fair use claim for it. Using the image that was uploaded later is at a resolution not in accordance with a fair use claim, it's too high of a resolution. This is image is clearly copywritten by the Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time and he is still alive. There is no valid public domain claim to be made for this image. --WGFinley (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phoebe Judge's signature.png

Editor nomination. Discovered that it's not her signature. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Salavat (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:315 Sporting rifle.png

This image is claimed to be under free license but without proof. The given source is a direct link to an image file on an Indian government web site. As best as I can determine, this was from this site which is for the Ordnance Factory Board, an industrial organisation operating under the Indian department of defense]. The copyright policy indicates mateiral is copyrighted unless otherwise stated and so this does not appear to fall under India's open government licensing. Whpq (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astaire Puttin on the Ritz.jpg

The promotional image of Fred Astaire jumping in the dance routine is used in "Puttin' on the Ritz" and "Blue Skies (1946 film)". I recently added the cover of the sheet music in the song article. I thought about removing the Astaire picture from the article just to make the sheet music cover the only lead image, but I'm unsure which article the picture is well suited in, i.e. whether each use of the article complies with NFCC, including "contextual significance" criterion (#8). George Ho (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Fargo, North Dakota.svg

There is no indication that Fargo even has an official flag. Per the source URL, an online contest was held by a community group in the city and they forwarded it to the city for consideration, but no action was ever taken. After quite a bit of searching online, I can't find anything indicating the city of Fargo ever voted on having an official flag. Thus, this image appears to be unencyclopedic as there isn't any use for having an unofficial flag uploaded that could be confusing or misleading, and that is unlikely to ever be included on any pages (aside from incorrectly including it on the city page if an editor believes this is the official flag). Editor10293813 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) and misleading as potentially unofficial per nom. Salavat (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::::Just because a newspaper used it without copyright notice doesn't somehow instantly make it public domain. Were that true, you using it on WP would make it instantly PD, that's not the case. Nick Ut worked for AP for 51 years, they clearly own this image. https://apnews.com/1bc4725ece764fcab754a99b030f0397 --[[User:WGFinley|WGFinley]] ([[User talk:WGFinley|talk]]) 11:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 :::::Yes, it does. Copyright notice was required for works published in the U.S. before 1989, and the failure to include one generally placed a work in the public domain. That is why we have a template for this situation, {{tl|PD-US-no-notice}}. [[User:Toohool|Toohool]] ([[User talk:Toohool|talk]]) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
+::::::No, it doesn't. If a license agreement calls for the licensee to include notice, but the licensee fails to do that, that has no effect on copyright status. 17 USC 405(a)(3). We have the template for the situation where, in fact, the notice requirement wasn't met -- not for where Toohool concludes via his naive investigation that it wasn't met.{{pb}}You have no idea what you're talking about, and the situation's beginning to get serious. There's an enormous body of statue, regulation, and case law on this kind of stuff, and you're running around claiming PD for scores of famous images based on a summary table you saw in some pamphlet. You really think you've made this penetrating analysis everyone else missed? The word ''sophomoric'' comes to mind. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' the original file. I secured permission from the AP to use this file 15 years ago for Wikipedia. Notwithstanding that, we're making a fair use claim for it. Using the image that was uploaded later is at a resolution not in accordance with a fair use claim, it's too high of a resolution. This is image is clearly copywritten by the Associated Press whom Ut was working for at the time and he is still alive. There is no valid public domain claim to be made for this image.  --[[User:WGFinley|WGFinley]] ([[User talk:WGFinley|talk]]) 02:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)