File talk:Dorothy Healey.jpg

LA Times photograph of Dorothy Healey not renewed?
[copied FYI from

While I'm glad to see a picture added to Dorothy Healey's article, I'm concerned about the copyright status. What research did you do to determine that 1) the copyright in the individual photograph and 2) the copyright in the LA Times issue -- were not renewed? Generally, (I'm coming from Project Gutenberg's efforts in this area) such research should involve checking the registry of copyright entries for all the years when it could have been renewed, for both the issue and the individual photograph. We really need to check up on this for the LA Times in more detail before uploading these photographs as PD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi: the Healey foto was actually published in the long-defunct Los Angeles Daily News, which apparently never renewed any of their copyrights. See http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html, more of UPenn's good work. While there is (to my knowledge) no separate online list of renewals for individual photographs, it seems almost certain that Healey's photo was taken as work-for-hire by whatever LADN photographer was on duty that night six decades ago....


 * Nothing in copyright is ever completely certain, it seems, but our backup here is that all the photos in the LAT/UCLA archive are licensed for "free" reuse under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license. Which isn't quite free by WP doctrine, but close enough to prevent any legal difficulties if we miss on a PD call. HTH, and Merry Christmas! --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone read: Media copyright questions/Archive/2008/March?Philly jawn (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If copyright has expired (as here), they are public domain now, so the NC issue doesn't arise. If the LAT photo are prior to 1958 (SUN); 1962 (Daily), copyright has expired. See . Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)