Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 April 18



File:Katakan Katamu ANTV logo.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Katakan Katamu ANTV logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * credited on article as "'Title credit of Katakan Katamu", if so, then this is a screenshot & not PD-self Skier Dude  ( talk ) 00:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Rangking 1 trans tv logo.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Rangking 1 trans tv logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * credited as TV logo - no source, if logo, would not be PD-self Skier Dude  ( talk ) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Katakan Katamu ANTV 001.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  05:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Katakan Katamu ANTV 001.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * fairly evident screen-shot of TV show, would not be pd-self, no source Skier Dude  ( talk ) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Prototype-villiers.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  05:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Prototype-villiers.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This appears to be a book/photo scan. Ergo, I doubt the uploader's claim to be the image creator. If the uploader can't supply proof of ownership and permission via OTRS then I would suggest it is deleted. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Scene from Carl Hancock Rux's Talk.tif

 * 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Scene from Carl Hancock Rux's Talk.tif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * I really doubt that the user in question is the creator of the image found here, particularly as he has also uploaded an image of a book cover claiming it is his own intellectual property. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Paul-Newman-portrait.jpg

 * 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 discussion was: Delete While there is strong evidence (cited in the discussion below and elsewhere) suggesting that publicity photos were not copyrighted, no evidence has been provided to establish or suggest that this is such a publicity photo. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Paul-Newman-portrait.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * A great number of images like this one are tagged as PD based on an assumption that most Publicity photos were not copyrighted in the 60s and 70s. Even if this is determined to be the case, there seems to be no solid criteria to determine that a given photo was a publicity image and that it was one of those never released with a copyright notice. This needs attention. Damiens .rf 17:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Under the Copyright Act of 1909, if even one copy was distributed to the general public without a copyright notice, the work is in the public domain, end of story. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  21:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be great news. I though the first copy was what matters. Can someone confirm this? --Damiens .rf 09:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See The Public Domain by Nolo. I'll see if I can find a quote from there.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  15:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you find it? I'm still under the impression that the first publication is what determined copyrights. --Damiens .rf 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Chapter 19. The main gist I got of it was that any publication under the authorization of the copyright holder lacking notice automatically injected the work into the public domain, regardless of whether it was the first publication.  Fishman (the author) does mention a case-law exemption under the 1909 Act for mechanical errors that result in a defective notice on a few copies (which was later expanded under the 1976 Act).  Also it mentions the case where a work is published with proper notice and then a derivative work is published without notice; according to the book, the latter work is definitely in the public domain, while it is disputed whether this also injects the former work into the public domain as well.  So it appears to be that Fishman assumes without saying that any publication under the authorization of the copyright holder without proper notice, barring a few exceptions, is in the public domain.  Finally, personally speaking, I don't see how the "only first publication requires notice" makes sense in light of the stringent notice requirements; it seems counterintuitive to only require them on copies that are part of a first publication.  RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The uploader of this and many other photos suffering from the same problem has just editted the article about films stills to include this assumption about most Publicity photos not being copyrighted. Please not that this is a symbolic nomination that actually covers some hundred images, hopefully, most from the same uploader. I really miss the debate here. --Damiens .rf 16:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

File:Koufax mag.jpg

 * 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 discussion was: Delete. 1963 Sports Illustrated issues appear to have been renewed per searches at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Koufax mag.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Are Sports Illustrated magazines from 1963 PD? Damiens .rf 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.