Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/11

duplicate files. Recorded files with the same sound quality. 211.197.54.36 02:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate files. Recorded files with the same sound quality. 211.197.54.36 02:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dw of photos, sadly no FOP in South Africa

• File:Lt.Col Henning La Grange.jpg   Delete under active copyright --RAN (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Col CC Shabort.jpg   Keep PD-South-Africa --RAN (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• File:RSM CA Laker.jpg   Keep PD-South-Africa --RAN (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Cmdt. C.F.J. Meyer.jpg   Keep PD-South-Africa --RAN (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gbawden (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of public advertisements. The menu stickers might be permanently affixed to an ice cream stall but there's no COM:FOP Netherlands for photographs of photographs.

• File:Bum Bum ice cream.jpg
• File:Calippo Orange.jpg
• File:Many different types of ice cream part two.jpg
• File:Many different types of ice cream.jpg

Belbury (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why COM:FOP Netherlands is linked here. The first photo is taken in Austria, the other three in the United Kingdom (for one this is a guess, but it's showing the pound sterling symbol). I believe COM:FOP Austria and COM:FOP UK are the appropriate links here (if not, please correct me). I'm unsure exactly how these relate to these photographs. My guess from what I have read is that the same rule applies to photographs in these countries from what I can tell, but I would appreciate an adjusted reasoning. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I made the assumption from the Netherlands translations in the descriptions that they came from there. Thanks for putting me right.

So FOP UK doesn't allow photos of 2D graphic works. And the Austria photo looks like it's of two temporary signs put outside a kiosk during business hours rather than "works created to remain permanently at a public place", so doesn't meet FOP Austria. Belbury (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think no sound? Sriveenkat (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios mistagged as own works. (It is to determined, however, if File:Ykkösbonus-1-2.png qualifies as a PD-textlogo.)

• File:Ykkösbonus-1-2.png
• File:Ykkösbonus-Tiliraha.jpg
• File:Lainapeli GE Money kääntöpuoli.jpg
• File:Lainapeli GE Money.jpg

Geohakkeri (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright holders for any of these exist, currently nor at the time they were digitized by me. Ls0065 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. Why do you think so? --Geohakkeri (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All companies that created them or to whom they were created have gone defunct, and no successor to either of them have taken over the assets either. There's no one currently that would want them taken down, or could initiate any action.. The first qualifies as a vector logo, the scan of the old card I think is fair use, there are many wiki pages that have a photo or a scan of some old card like that, and the scan of the advertisement, is an advertisement, it was meant to be spread around anyway, and falls under "Other promotional material" in the guidelines and it satisfies the rules for such in my opinion. Ls0065 (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons does not accept “fair use” media files. --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relief by Wäinö Aaltonen (1894–1966) Geohakkeri (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for File:Jaakko Hyötyniemi Reliefi.jpg. --Geohakkeri (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliefikuvan poistolle ei ole perusteita. Reliefi on kaikkien nähtävänä Kemin eteläisellä hautuumaalla ja valokuva on minun itseni ottama. Toivoisin "Geohakkerin" myös uskaltavan käyttävän oikeaa nimeään ja perustelevan toiveitaan pyytäessään tällaisia muutoksia. tv Matti Hyötyniemi, Jaakko Hyötyniemen pojanpoika. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.183.178.178 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commonsiin tallennetaan ainostaan sellaista aineistoa, jota voi käyttää vapaasti mihin tahansa tarkoitukseen. Wäinö Aaltosen tekijänoikeudet ovat vielä voimassa, mikä rajoittaa myös hänen teoksistaan otettujen valokuvien käyttöä. Reliefikuvaa voi siis käyttää ainostaan sitaattioikeudella, eikä se siksi sovellu tänne. Valokuvan voi kuitenkin tallentaa ns. paikallisesti suomenkieliseen Wikipediaan, koska siellä sitaattioikeuden varainen käyttö hyväksytään. Se, että teos on kaikkien nähtävillä ei tosiaan estä sitä nauttimasta tekijänoikeuden suojaa, joka säilyy voimassa, kunnes tekijän kuolinvuodesta on kulunut 70 vuotta. --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jos esittämäsi tekijänsuojan erittäin kireä tulkinta pitäisi paikkansa, niin esimerkiksi kaikista ulkoilmassa olevista taideteoksista tai vaikkapa jostain Alvar Aallon rakennuksesta otetut valokuvat ja ehkä maalauksetkin olisivat kiellettyjen listalla, olivatpa nämä sitten kuvaajien itsensä ottamia tai eivät. Kuulostaa järjettömältä huomioiden kuinka paljon esimerkiksi Instagramissa ja muualla somessa tällaisia kuvia levitetään kenenkään estämättä.

Tästä huolimatta minulle kyllä sopii sekin jos kuva näkyy sitaattioikeudella pelkästään Suomalaisessa wikipediassa, mutten tiedä miten sellainen määrittely tapahtuu käytännössä. Täytyy tutkia asiaa. Mhyotyni (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

”Taideteoksen kuvaaminen on sallittua muissakin kuin 1 tai 2 momentissa tarkoitetuissa tapauksissa, jos teos on pysyvästi sijoitettu julkiselle paikalle tai sen välittömään läheisyyteen. Jos taideteos on kuvan pääaihe, kuvaa ei saa käyttää ansiotarkoituksessa. Tekstiin liittyvän kuvan saa kuitenkin ottaa sanomalehteen tai aikakauskirjaan. Rakennuksen saa vapaasti kuvata.” Wikimaailmassa tuota lainkohtaa tosiaan tulkitaan aika kireästi, mutta tänne tallennettujen kuvien pitäisi olla vapaita myös kaupalliseen käyttöön. Kuvan voi tallentaa Wikipediaan tällä lomakkeella. Tietojen syöttämiseen voit ottaa mallia vaikkapa tästä tiedostosivusta. --Geohakkeri (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually the COA of the West Indies Federation (1958–1962), not of the Antillean Confederation. And I don't see the point in merely renaming this file, given that other files (SVG, PNG and JPG versions) representing the WIF arms (with the correct file titles) already exist on Commons. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:GamerHashaam has uploaded multiple files that have been subsequently deleted for copyright violations – see upload log here. User has additionally re-uploaded files after deletion. The only source I have found attributed to this file is The Balochistan Post, in a now-deleted news article here, and all of the posts I can find containing this image claim it documents a July 2022 event. Peloneous (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file was taken from [1] where it says the original source was a 1937 book. One could speculate that the portrait is contemporary, but frankly it doesn't look like a 16th century portrait, but rather like a more modern image perhaps painted after an older painting or a statue or something. And such a 20th century painting could perfectly well still be copyrighted in both Germany and the US. Unless we get some solid evidence that this portrait file is really in the public domain or under a free license, the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the game's logo is under COM:TOO, mostly due to the wood design elements. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As copyvio due to the wood elements of the logo and the arrangement of logos on the box. Just because a design is minimalist does not immediately make it uncopyrightable.Zxcvbnm (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern files for which a PD license was added when it doesn't apply. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All images are currently in the public domain, or the author has been dead for over 70 years. Mac Edmunds (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 - 70 = 1954. I think you need to provide more information for the files with unknown author produced before 1954. The ones produced after 1954 can't be in the public domain. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If an image appears in a newspaper, is it classed as in the public domain.

If not, would I have to credit the original photographer, or the newspaper?

File:LORD & LADY TREDEGAR WITH BRIDGET RUSSELL & DOGS 1956.png , shows the following copyright label:

Image © Illustrated London News Group. Image created courtesy of THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD.

Is this an appropriate copyright tag?

Thanks,

Mac Edmunds (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For images extracted from newspapers, there is {{PD-newspaper-assumed}}. It mentions that only images published at least 120 years ago can be assumed to be in the public domain. Otherwise authorship knowledge is required to ensure that the author's death was at least 70 years ago. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How else would I find the Creative Commons status of an image? Is the copyright label provided in my last message of any relevance? Mac Edmunds (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's just impossible to find license information. In the case of newspapers, most photographs are taken by professional photographers who don't license their work under a free license. If you want to use some media in a Wikipedia article, you can look into uploading them to Wikipedia under the fair use case: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Fair-use/Non-free_images. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I have read; Wikipedia:Image use policy#Fair-use/Non-free_images

Having read this, I have no objection to the listed images being removed, with 1 exceptions.

Exception A: I believe that File:LORD & LADY TREDEGAR WITH BRIDGET RUSSELL & DOGS 1956.png meets the English Wikipedia non-free content criteria.

If all other aforementioned John Morgan images were removed, it fits the 10 criteria;

1. There is no free-equivalent that could be used or created to serve the same purpose.
2. The content is not used in a manner that replaces the role of the original copyrighted material, as it comes from a Tatler magazine which is no longer for sale.
3. Minimal usage - the image will only be used once in my article, and a portion of it will not suffice.
4. The image has previously been published outside of Wikipedia (in Tatler magazine) with permission of the copyright holder, R. H. Schloss.
5. The image meets Wikipedia content standards. I.E, is verifiable, neutral, and shows respect for living people.
6. It meets Wikipedia's "media specific policy". (see table below)
7. The image has previously been used in at least 1 article. (in Tatler magazine)
8. The image has contextual significance, as it shows the main subject with his family, giving the reader a greater understanding of the topic.
9. The image will only be used in my article. Specifically, the infobox.
10. The image description page contains the following/will do upon allowance of the use of the "fair-use non-free images" tag.

a. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright.

b. A copyright tag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_biog-pic) indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. This will be asserted on the allowance of the fair-use tag.

c. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item. (see table below). Mac Edmunds (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file needs to be uploaded to en.wikipedia.org (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard), not commons.wikimedia.org which can only accept free content. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Thank you for your help. I will upload it shortly.

Mac Edmunds (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate files, no willingness to improve, overall sound quality poor. 211.197.54.36 18:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a public domain work of the government of Iceland as claimed. Article 9 only applies to the text of various legal instruments. Furthermore, the satellite photography probably isn't owned by the government. Bjarki S (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing permission. Claimed as own work, but seems to have been made by "Bondova devojka" Multichill (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search for Bondova devojka returns about 1200 images in Category:WikiLive 2022 & Category:WikiLive 2024. Looks like all of them are missing a release. Multichill (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Multichill, thank you for raising this up. I am Gorana Gomirac, GLAM Manager at Wikimedia Serbia and I have uploaded this pictures to Wikimedia Commons. The Wikilive conference is a local Wikimedia Serbia conference and we are organizing it for the eighth time. The Bondova devojka has been a volunteer photographer at this conference for years and takes photos for our event, her username is listed as the author and she fully agrees that the photos be found under Creative Commons licenses on Wikimedia Commons, as in previous years. If necessary, the Bondova devojka can also contact you to confirm. Is it possible to recover deleted photos?

Thanks in advance! Gorana Gomirac (VMRS) (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorana Gomirac (VMRS): just get a release from Bondova Devojka, see Commons:Volunteer Response Team how to do that. Deleted photos are just hidden for normal users so all photos can be recovered. Multichill (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Multichill, thank you for the notification! Since there is a release from Bondova Devojka, how we can recover deleted photos? Those are the names of deleted files File:Group photo - WikiLive Conference 2024 217.jpg, File:Group photo - WikiLive Conference 2024 216.jpg, File:WikiLive Conference 2024 750.jpg, File:WikiLive 2024 25.jpg. Thank you in advance!

Best, Gorana Gomirac (VMRS) (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VTRS person will process your release and update related files. After that the undeletion can happen. Multichill (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literary works like text are not covered by FOP in Ireland. Abzeronow (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Online drama distribution license by NRTA.jpg
• File:Television series distribution license by NRTA.png

{{PD-PRC-exempt}} only applies to texts, not images or photos. This is backed by an abundance of clear, well-established consensus here on Commons, for example:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Nature Reserve.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Immigration Inspection brand image-nihao.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:The 70th Anniversary of the Founding of The People's Republic of China logo .svg (2nd nomination)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:上海市市标沙船白玉兰.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:HONGKOU+River.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:中国公路徽标.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hu Jintao Embassy.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LivioConti

Wcam (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply by reasoning. Please note that I'm not AI robot, all text are written by myself.

1. These files are the different form of distribution licenses, which are similar to Film Release License of China (or The Dragon Logo Scene).
2. These files are issued by the NRTA notices 国家广播电视总局办公厅关于使用国产电视剧片头统一标识的通知 and 国家广播电视总局办公厅关于国产网络剧片发行许可服务管理有关事项的通知 (although there are no files linked). The PRC Copyright Law Article 5 states: "This law shall not apply to: (1) laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof". Regulations on the Handling of Official Documents by Party (CPC) and Government Organs (党政机关公文处理工作条例) Article 8 states: "The main types of official documents are: (8) Notices. (公文种类主要有：（八）通知。)" This is enough to prove that it should be in the public domain.
3. The examples you gave are logos (and other photos) by the Government Organs, so they are not in the public domain absolutely.

Therefore, my preliminary comment is   Keep (but it is not the final comment necessarily). If I still have issues I can ask to you at Reference Desk on the Chinese Wikipedia. Other users are welcomed to participate this discussion. My reply is end. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complex logo exceeding COM:TOO China. The level of creativity in this logo is comparable to the examples of "笑", "喜", Gang Heng and K2 logos described in COM:TOO China that are ruled in courts of law to be subject to copyright protection. Wcam (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this is in the PD when I was uploading. In this case, just delete it. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Bettmann_Archive_photos. All photos nominated here are post-1963 US images, ranging from 1964 to the 1980s. These photos claim to be in the public domain due to 'lack of notice' using the {{PD-US-no notice}} template. However, there is little to no proof of that.
My main concern is not that we are violating the copyright of a stock site, but that there is not enough proof these images actually meet the PD no-notice tag criteria. I am not denying they were published, rather the 'no notice' claims are hard to prove and assumptions are being made here.
The first problem is that we cannot see the entire print, sheet or strip to verify the lack of notice claims. The copyright notice would not be on the photo like a watermark; it would be elsewhere. Getty only shows the high-resolution scan of the front. An example of an image that shows no notice, this UPI photo: File:Senator Ross Bass "On the Job!" (1965 UPI press photo).jpg, can be seen on the rear. Most of these photographs from the Bettmann Archive could very well be public domain, but without seeing the whole photo or its backside where a notice might be, its copyright status is uncertain. Assuming it's public domain without further verification is risky.
The second problem is that almost all photos are credited to an 'unknown author.' How are we supposed to know who took the photo? Otto Bettmann was the collector of these photos, not the creator or copyright holder, and neither is Getty. Many photos come from various sources and creators, and I did see some that are credited to UPI, a press agency, so perhaps other copies exist elsewhere. This is also problematic for photos from 1978 and later, as we cannot really search for registrations.
For pre-1964 photos, we can search for renewals, so it is not the same concern as with the 1964-1989 photos.
Essentially, any and all photos could be Public Domain, but there is a serious lack of evidence to back up those claims. I am making this mass DR as I have doubts on the freedom of these files, but also for a consensus. What do we do with all these photos? There are millions more in the archive that could be useful to the Commons. Would love to hear others opinions on this.

• File:EdwardKochSpeaking79.png
• File:HermanTalmadge1966.png
• File:KochPortrait1978.png
• File:KochSpeaking88.png
• File:HermanTalmadgeWatergate.png
• File:HermanTalmadge1966Crop.png
• File:Allard K. Lowenstein Bettmann.jpg
• File:Ray Shamie.jpg
• File:SenGeorgeMurphy65.jpg
• File:Charles Goodell 1974.jpg
• File:Frank Church 1975.jpg
• File:Maurine Neuberger.jpg
• File:Herman E Talmadge 66.jpg
• File:Omar Bradley 1967.jpg
• File:Don Fawler (cropped).jpg
• File:Alan Cranston 1969 Color.jpg
• File:Peter Rodino 1974.jpg
• File:Reubin Askew 1971 (lesscropped).jpg
• File:Henry Ford II Salvaged.jpg
• File:Adlai Stevenson III 1970.jpg
• File:Carl T Curtis 1965 (cropped).jpg
• File:Tom Hayden, Democratic Candidate for Senate Crop.jpg
• File:Ronald Reagan, 14 May 1974 (cropped1).jpg
• File:Tom Hayden, Democratic Candidate for Senate.jpg
• File:Charles Mathias (R-MD) (cropped).jpg
• File:John Hathaway Reed.jpg
• File:Richard Hongisto (cropped).jpg
• File:WilliamScrantonPortrait.jpg
• File:KochAddressingPress86.png
• File:VP Agnew and Mayor Lindsay (cropped to Lindsay).jpg
• File:Don Fawler.jpg
• File:Ted Kennedy 1979.jpg
• File:HermanTalmadge1966 Crop Alt.png
• File:George Moscone 1975.jpg
• File:Lister Hill 1965 (cropped).jpg
• File:Lister Hill 1965 (loose crop).jpg
• File:Bob Casey Sr 1974.jpg
• File:James G Abourezk.jpg
• File:Edmund Muskie (D-ME) (croppedmore).jpg
• File:PatBrown66 (cropped).jpg
• File:Wilbur Mills 1966 Salvaged (wider cropped).jpg
• File:Reubin Askew 1971 (cropped).jpg
• File:Mayor Yorty May1970 (cropped).jpg
• File:Senator Charles Goodell in 1968 (cropped).jpg
• File:Perry Bullard 1975.jpg
• File:New York Sec Mario Cuomo (cropped).jpg
• File:Bryce Harlow 04 Nov 1969 (cropped).jpg
• File:Official portrait of Robert Byrd, 1966.jpg
• File:Scoop Jackson 1969.jpg
• File:Frank G Clement 65 (cropped).jpg
• File:Senator Mike Monroney.jpg
• File:John Cornelius Stennis (cropped).jpg
• File:Mo Udall 1974.jpg
• File:J. Edward Hutchinson in a Nixon impeachment hearing, 1974 (cropped).jpg
• File:Harry F Byrd JR (cropped).jpg
• File:Senator Javits 1966 (cropped).jpg
• File:PatBrown66.jpg
• File:Fred Harris 1971 Crop (cropped).jpg
• File:Edward Nixon, 1968.jpg
• File:Fred Harris Sept1971 (cropped).jpg
• File:New York Sec Mario Cuomo.jpg
• File:Mike Curb 1979 Salvaged.jpg
• File:Harry F Byrd JR.jpg
• File:Fred Harris Sept1971.jpg
• File:Senator Javits 1966.jpg
• File:James G Abourezk (cropped).jpg
• File:1972 Claiborne Pell (cropped) (alt).jpg
• File:Norris H Cotton (cropped).jpg
• File:Mike Curb 1979 Salvaged Crop.jpg
• File:EdwardKochSpeaking79cropped.png
• File:John B Anderson 1974 (cropped).jpg
• File:Wilbur Mills 1966 Salvaged.jpg
• File:Senator Charles Goodell in 1968.jpg
• File:Thomas J Dodd 1966 (cropped).jpg
• File:J. Edward Hutchinson in a Nixon impeachment hearing, 1974.jpg
• File:Carl T Curtis 1965.jpg
• File:Ross Bass (cropped).jpg
• File:Edward Nixon, 1968 (cropped).jpg
• File:John B Anderson 1974.jpg
• File:Gov Rockefeller Nov 69 (cropped).jpg
• File:Robert Taft Jr. 1971 (cropped).jpg
• File:Gov Otto Kerner - 1967 (croppedmore).jpg
• File:KochAndMyerson.png
• File:Edmund Muskie (D-ME).jpg
• File:A Beame - 1965.jpg
• File:VP Agnew and Mayor Lindsay (cropped).jpg
• File:Gov Otto Kerner - 1967 (cropped).jpg
• File:Harry F Byrd JR (portrait).jpg
• File:William F. Buckley Jr 1969 (cropped).jpg
• File:SenAEllender 66.jpg
• File:John Cornelius Stennis.jpg
• File:Former NYC Mayor Robert F Wagner JR.jpg
• File:Wilbur Mills 1966.jpg
• File:Edmund Muskie (D-ME) (cropped).jpg
• File:Walter Hickel 1969 (cropped).jpg
• File:Edward Kennedy 1966 (cropped and color adjusted).jpg
• File:Ross Bass.jpg
• File:Sen. John Cornelius Stennis (cropped).jpg
• File:Mayor Yorty May1970.jpg
• File:1972 Claiborne Pell.jpg
• File:Bryce Harlow 04 Nov 1969.jpg
• File:Gov Rockefeller Nov 69.jpg
• File:Charles Mathias (R-MD).jpg
• File:Lister Hill 1965.jpg
• File:Robert Taft Jr. 1971.jpg
• File:Thomas J Dodd 1966.jpg
• File:Former Mayor Robert Wagner.jpg
• File:Senator Mike Monroney (cropped).jpg
• File:1977, Senator S. I. Hayakawa (cropped).jpg
• File:Norris H Cotton.jpg
• File:George Wallace, Meet the Press - 1971 (cropped) 3x4.jpg
• File:Tim Babcock 1965.jpg
• File:Senator Javits 1966 (slight crop).jpg
• File:Senator Hubert Humphrey at the Capitol (cropped).jpg
• File:Ronald Reagan, 14 May 1974 (cropped).jpg
• File:PeteSDupont.jpg
• File:Walter Hickel 1969.jpg
• File:1977, Senator S. I. Hayakawa.jpg
• File:Ronald Reagan, 14 May 1974.jpg
• File:George Moscone 1975 Crop.jpg
• File:Jerry Brown 1979 Salvaged Crop.jpg
• File:Howard Baker - 1967 (cropped).jpg
• File:SenAEllender 66 (cropped).jpg
• File:Reubin Askew 1971.jpg
• File:Howard Baker - 1967.jpg
• File:Khmer New Year 1960s.jpg
• File:George Wallace, Meet the Press - 1971.jpg
• File:PeteSDupont (cropped 2).jpg
• File:Goldwater and Miller (cropped).jpg
• File:William F. Buckley Jr 1969.jpg
• File:Jerry Brown 1979 Salvaged.jpg
• File:Senator Hubert Humphrey at the Capitol.jpg
• File:EugeneMcCarthy Meet the Press.jpg
• File:Gus Hall 1975.jpg
• File:Gov Otto Kerner - 1967.jpg
• File:George Wallace, Meet the Press - 1971 (cropped).jpg
• File:Fred Harris 1971.jpg
• File:Lawrence E. Gerosa.jpg
• File:Sanford 76 announcement - 1975 (cropped).jpg
• File:Fred Harris 1971 Crop.jpg
• File:PeteSDupont (cropped).jpg
• File:Sanford 76 announcement - 1975.jpg
• File:VP Agnew and Mayor Lindsay.jpg
• File:Mike Mansfield 1966 (3x4).jpg
• File:Hall and Davis 1975 Salvaged.jpg
• File:Harold Stassen at Law Office.jpg
• File:Ronald Reagan 1966 (cropped).jpg
• File:Wallace-LeMay speaking to press.jpg
• File:Ronald Reagan 1966.jpg
• File:Scoop Jackson (D-WA).jpg
• File:Jody Miller--1966.jpg
• File:Mike Mansfield 1966.jpg
• File:Everett Dirksen and Gerald Ford Addressing Newsmen.jpg
• File:Sen McGovern 15Sep72 (cropped).jpg
• File:Mike Mansfield 1966 (cropped).jpg
• File:Olivia Newton-John OBE.jpg
• File:Barry Goldwater greets Everett Dirksen.jpg
• File:Scoop Jackson (D-WA)-cropped.jpg
• File:Joseph Alioto 1968 Salvaged Crop.jpg
• File:Dianne Feinstein 1971 Salvaged Crop.jpg
• File:President Richard Nixon and New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.jpg
• File:Sen McGovern 15Sep72.jpg
• File:Matilde Zimmermann 1979 (cropped).jpg
• File:Dianne Feinstein 1971 Salvaged.jpg
• File:Joseph Alioto 1968 Salvaged.jpg
• File:Dianne Feinstein 1979 Salvaged.jpg
• File:Dianne Feinstein 1979 Salvaged Crop.jpg
• File:Andrew Pulley.jpg
• File:Andrew Pulley (cropped).jpg
• File:Humphrey, RFK - Borough Hall 1964.jpg
• File:Ronald Reagan Speaking with Colleagues.jpg
• File:Matilde Zimmermann 1979.jpg
• File:PaulWMcCracken (cropped).jpg
• File:Jarvis Tyner 1976.jpg
• File:Howard Samuels 1970.jpg
• File:Robert Drinan 1971.jpg
• File:PaulWMcCracken.jpg
• File:Harold Stassen at Law Office (cropped).jpg
• File:President Richard Nixon with Lucius Clay, Thomas Dewey, Dean Acheson, and John McCloy.jpg
• File:Goldwater and Miller (cropped2).jpg
• File:Goldwater and Miller.jpg
• File:1968DPVPMuskie.png
• File:DP68Humphrey.png
• File:Owen Bieber 1986.jpg
• File:Leonard Woodcock 1970.jpg
• File:Rómulo Betancourt-1966.jpg
• File:KochSpeaking88cropped.png
• File:WIlliamEMiller.jpg
• File:DPVP64.png
• File:President Richard Nixon with Emperor Haile Selassie I.png
• File:Mary Anne Krupsak.png
• File:Chou En-lai and Sukarno Ride in Boat.jpg
• File:Norton Simon 1971.jpg

PascalHD (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Leaving the discussion that has been used in a previous deletion request pertaining to the archive and the license: w:Talk:Mike_Mansfield#Picture. reppop^talk 22:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Delete Undoubtly some of these photographs are probably PD. Its always questionable when a website mass posts, or a user mass uploads, files and expects other people to do the footwork of finding out what the copyright of said images is. That's not our job and it should be done BEFORE they are uploaded and made clear in the images description beyond just the boiler plate liecense. Especially since some of these images clearly looked cropped and there's no images of their back sides. So how are we even suppose to figure out if they have a copyright on them to begin with? We aren't. Therefore we must delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite frankly this argument is retarded. Erm, there might be a posible violation even though there is no evidence. There is no evidence it's copyrighted, let's not waste our time on hypotheticals and make this site worse. So let's Keep. KlaudeMan (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PascalHD It's been over two weeks and it's 4-2 in favor of keep so I think we should close now. KlaudeMan (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm wondering if this is something we should consult legal about in absence of a consensus to delete the images. As I don't think a local consensus from 4 people to keep images can or should override the wider policy (if not mandate) that we only host images that won't potentially lead to re-users getting sued. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My main issue is that the argument is pure hypothetical around the possibility of the copyright being secretly in grandmas coffee can. There is no evidence to suggest copyright, so all this is doing is ruining Wikipedia just so for a hypothetical. KlaudeMan (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @KlaudeMan I have provided my reasoning for my concerns; it is up to you to read it. I understand and agree that these images are valuable to the site. Given the large number of images from the collection, and valid concerns, I am seeking a community consensus to establish a precedent on how these images should be handled. I believe that would be the best approach before mass uploading the hundreds of thousands of images off Getty. As much as I dislike it, copyright needs to be taken seriously, not shrugged off. PascalHD (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I missed it, but from what I remember the nominator laid their reason's for the DR pretty well and none of them had to do with someone's grandma or a coffee can. Regardless, 99% of this has never been tested in court. So it's all hypothetical to some degree. That's not a valid excuse to keep any given set of images though. Nor do I think we should keep images simply because people like you can't be bothered to address or acknowledge the actual reasons for the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The coffee can thing was just a joke, there is no evidence to verify it to be in the copyright so we can assume it to be in public domain. The only evidence of posible copyright would be on paper hidden away in a library, or well grandmas coffee can. KlaudeMan (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I think its the opposite though. If someone uploads an image where we don't the date of publication, author, country of origin or if it was even published to begin with then we usually (if not always) delete it. There has to at least the basics and they clearly don't exist in this case. Heck, we don't even know what country a lot of these photographs were taken in. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The simplest solution might be attempt to track down a physical copy of one of these images, as most likely the copyright of that image would be the same as those of all in the betteman archive. KlaudeMan (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I imagine this would work best for the UPI photos part of the collection. Some of the photos on Getty show the text on front, like this one, but not the back. However, the example photo I linked above for Ross Bass shows what a typical UPI photo looked like including the back. Checking ebay and reverse searches could find other copies. Library of Congress also mentions that UPI 'had few photos registered', some might have carried notices. UPI photos would likely be upload-able with some due diligence. With that being said, not all photos in the Bettman collection are from UPI. This logic would not necessarily apply to the other photos. Majority of the photos nominated for deletion make no mention of UPI to begin with. PascalHD (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Adamant1 That sounds like a good idea. Wouldn't hurt to get further opinions on this. PascalHD (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will quote an email from Getty that someone sent in relation to a past discussion on this topic

"Thanks for contacting us about an image that may be in the public domain. Public domain works can be used by anyone for any purpose without permission from the creator or copyright holder. This is distinct from the rights of any people or property depicted in the image. Where these rights exist, they will not automatically expire because the copyright for the image is in the public domain. Public domain content can be licensed by any image provider and there are benefits to doing so.

The advantage of licensing public domain content from Getty Images is that you gain legal protection under terms of our license, giving you an indemnity against any third party asserting rights to the copyright in the image. If you can find this image in the public domain and are comfortable with the quality of the image you find, and using it without a license, you can make the judgement call to do so. We can only make the version of this image on our website available by purchasing a license. Whenever using intellectual property of any kind we encourage you to consult with your legal team to ensure you're completely comfortable with doing so."

The copyright holders are unknown and Bettmann does not own the copyright to the images- meaning that I feel it is within reason to take a risk and keep the images. In a worst case scenario, the photographer would identify themselves and the image would then be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or conversely the photographer would sue any re-users. Which is exactly why Getty Images is clearly covering their own asses from law suites by re-users in that message. Regardless, there's nothing about it that is compatible with Commons. Especially that last bit, "the copyright holders are unknown and Bettmann does not own the copyright to the images." I don't even get how Getty Images can legally purchase a license from Bettmann for the images that case. Let alone re-release them for public use. And we're like 5 people down the line in that. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Microplastic Consumer The reply does not explicitly state that the Bettmann photos are confirmed public domain. Rather, it is a general acknowledgement that some photos might be in the public domain, leaving it up to self research. It may be a risk Getty is willing to and can afford to take, sure. However, the rules and policies of the Commons don't really allow for ambigious photos to be hosted, per COM:PRP. PascalHD (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep We have always accepted Getty's due diligence when they claim a copyright is active, or something is public domain. Up until 1989 you still had to register for a copyright. I looked at random 6 images and could not find any copyright registration for any image of person named under multiple permutations of their name. I can find copyrighted images of Ronald Reagan and Edward Koch, but the descriptions do not fit the image we host. --RAN (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Majority of the photos in the archive are uncredited and belong to 'Unknown' authors, how can we truly look for registrations? Otto Bettmann was not the creator or copyright holder of these works - he just collected them. Even in cases we do know the author such as UPI in a few instances, Getty does not show us the rest of the photo, so we cannot confirm if a notice is present or not with certainty the same way we can with ebay listings. PascalHD (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You look for the subject named in the image in the registration and renewal database. You have to copyright each image and describe it, that is why the Associated Press and the United Press and other agencies did not bother with the expense. They created thousands of images a day. In the category for each news service you can read what the Library of Congress wrote about the absence of copyrights. Getty has been vigilant in having a bot crawl through Commons, issuing takedown notices with us when they find a copyrighted image. Newspapers like the New York Times use the Getty version even when we host a free version. Sometimes it is just easier to use their services as a package deal. --RAN (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree here. You can take down images post 1989 and maybe even 1978, but taking down images before 1978 makes no logical sense when:

  A. Images were not automatically copyrighted, and

  B. Images before 1978 from the archive have no actual copyright filings or notice.

  So, logically, unless these images on Bettman have a copyright notice, it makes sense to keep them. River10000 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The main concern is that there may be a copyright, we cannot easily confirm. Like I mentioned, many photos are uncredited 'Unknown' authors. We cannot find a registration if we do not the creator. Also many photos were distributed as press photos, we cannot confirm if they had notices when distributed to the media or not because Getty only shows us a HD scan from the source. United Press International photos are in this collection and could be copyrighted. Getty has no obligation to disclose what photos are PD because they stand to profit off the works. They however have stated if you can prove it is PD elsewhere, then its fair game. PascalHD (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Press International and Associated Press did not register copyrights, they handled thousands of images a day, the cost would have been onerous. --RAN (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the press photos within the collection are probably fine to keep. I'll strike thru the photos which are credited to UPI. However, not all photos in the Bettmann collection are 'press' photos, though. Majority of photos I nominated (portraits of American politicians) make no mention of any author. Are we sure those ones are 'press' photos too? PascalHD (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Delete As far as I can see, there is no explicit statement anywhere that the images in question are in the public domain. To the contrary, we know that some of them are press photos (such as those from UPI), which were generally intended for publication in news outlets, frequently with copyright statements. I am not even sure whether individual images, handed out to client publishers with an explicit restriction on reuse and potentially with additional contractual terms to affix copyright notice when (re-)publishing them, would suffice to void the copyright. After all, that would be restricted circulation, and individual isolated copies without copyright notice were not enough to lose copyright. In many of the cases under discussion here, we do not even have evidence of those individual copies. Felix QW (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @AlaskaGal: to make him aware of this. I have no strong opinion due to lack of expertise (have only cropped existing uploads by others). We are tied at 2 Keeps and 2 Deletes consensus-wise. SuperWIKI (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep , but I am very divided. When I first made the template that everyone uses to justify Bettmann images nowadays, I used to check the Copyright Office before I downloaded and published it to the Commons. I fully understand deleting them if we don't believe people are doing the same. Sorry for poor responses from now on; my heart problems are getting worse but apparently so is my bipolar so I won't be very active on Wikipedia anymore in general. As I type this I just got out of the hospital for 207/86 blood pressure hypertensive crisis. ~ AlaskaGal (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you check with the Copyright Office? We could use that process. SuperWIKI (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlaskaGal I hope you are well. I have always appreciated your good works. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Hope you are well too. AlaskaGal (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to be blunt. I don't even exactly remember. It was shared to me in a reply at some point and I used to just click that and slap in key words from the item I'm looking for. It was a vintage looking website, didn't look new. AlaskaGal (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'm not actively pushing for it, but if anyone is active in looking at Wikipedia articles with these disputed images, it would be appropriate to replace them with free Commons images if and when they are reviewed. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could be an issue as for certain articles (See: Matilde Zimmermann and Andrew Pulley) as the Bettmann images are the only ones in the Public Domain. I've done some work on the images I've personally uploaded and haven't found any indications of Copyright or anywhere else the images were posted online. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason the ones that are being used can't just be re-uploaded to Wikipedia as fair use? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects are still alive and therefore cannot have free use images Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least a couple of them like Omar Bradley have been dead for a while now. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Comment A lot of these are only licensed as "PD-US-No-Notice" or whatever when they weren't even taken in the United States to begin with. So we'd still need a valid license for the country of origin to keep them regardless of they had a copyright notice to begin with or not. As that applies in the United States. Unfortunately fixing that is made much harder by the fact that we don't know who the original photographers were in most (if not all) cases. Let alone the dates of publication if any. So there's really no way to know if the normal copyright term for the country of origin has passed or not. In other words, there's absolutely no way these images can legally be hosted on Commons with how they are currently and there doesn't seem to be a fix for that since we are missing the details we need to add proper licenses. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - I completely agree with @River10000, the image i uploaded was created before 1970, in fact verifiably at July 8, 1969, so trying to forward a deletion of an unregistered image in the copyright office, makes it automatically public domain in the US since no copyright traces are found of. This is really complicated but at the end of the day i don't think any actual 'violations' have occurred here. CtasACT (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I agree with @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), @CtasACT, and @River10000. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]