Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 4



File:Don Benton and Paul Shin.png

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Don Benton and Paul Shin.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It says that this is in the public domain thanks to "Washington’s Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17)". The act seems to be very long and the copyright tag isn't very specific about where in the act to find this public domain statement, but at a first glance it seems that the act only has the effect that people have the right to obtain a copy of the photograph from the state government, but not that the public can copy or modify it. If the uploader thinks that the indicated act puts this in the public domain, then the uploader must be more specific about what part of the act he is talking about. Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The quote on the licensing tag is from http://lss.leg.wa.gov/ (click Photography Services, then Photo Usage and Integrity), but the next sentence clearly forbids modification: "The legislature maintains photographs as historical records and, as such, has a policy prohibiting their alteration or manipulation." January  ( talk ) 15:15, 4 February 2014 (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:Representation of computer program for analytical engine.png

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Representation of computer program for analytical engine.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * OTRS ticket missing. Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2014 (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:Arthur Louis Aaron.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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Arthur Louis Aaron.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * We are missing evidence that this is in the public domain in the United States. The only thing we have is a statement that the photograph is in the public domain in the United Kingdom because the author is unknown (although the uploader hasn't provided any evidence that the author is unknown). Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2014 (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:Dr No trailer.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: Kept  TLSuda  (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Dr No trailer.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The PD claim for this British film doesn't seem to be correct here. The uploader claims that the image is a US work because it was made by a US company. However, the requirement is that the authors (the individual employees who created this image) all had to be US citizens residing in the United States. It does not matter where the company which created the film was registered. If at least one of the employees which created content above the threshold of originality was a British citizen or lived outside the United States, then the PD claim fails. The film entirely took place outside the United States, and the actor on the image was a British actor (although I don't know whether an actor counts as an author under US law), and this may cast some doubt about citizenship or country of residence of the authors. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Prior to 1978 trailers in the United States required their own copyright notice to prevent them from falling into the public domain, due to the fact that the trailer was published before the film, so was not protected by the copyright on the film, as was the case for the first three James Bond films. However, since the trailer for Dr. No was first published in the United Kingdom, its UK copyright was invoked first, and therefore is still under copyright in that country. Following the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, some copyrights were restored to foreign works residing in the US public domain; however this is not the case for the Dr. No trailer since it was authored by United Artists using material owned by Danjaq (the sole copyright holder on the early Bond films) which are both US incorporated companies. As such, the trailer for Dr. No is in the public domain in the United States, but not necessarily in other countries, making it ineligible to be hosted on Commons. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files in Category:Dr. No Bikini for a more thorough explanation. Carl Lindberg concluded: "Country of origin" is generally defined as country of first publication, so if that is the UK, there is no hope of PD status there, and Commons needs to respect that status. If the trailer did predate the movie in the UK, and that trailer had no copyright notice, then its US copyright was lost at the time, and not restored. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The country of origin is the United Kingdom as it was first published there. The film is not in the public domain in the United Kingdom. To count as a US work under US law, you need to show that one of the following is true:
 * The film was first published in the United States, or
 * All authors were US citizens residing in the United States.
 * The first statement is not true as it was first published in the United Kingdom. There is no evidence that the second statement is true. The actor on the image certainly wasn't a US citizen living in the United States as he was a British citizen. Unless this counts as a US work, the copyright was restored by the URAA. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As per the above, we're not tlaking about the film, but about the trailer, which is all rather different. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? There is no evidence that the trailer was first published in the US or that all of its authors were US citizens. For example, the company which made the trailer clearly employed a British actor. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much more clearly I can put it. It's all there, as explained. (And an actor is not an author: he's an actor.) The producers were Canadian and American. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If some of the authors were Canadian citizens or resided in Canada, then the film isn't a US work unless the film was first published in the United States, sorry. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Stefan's reasoning seems inconsistent to me. There are many trailer snapshots on Wikipedia that are considered part of the US public domain, and many of these trailers come from films that employed people of different nationalities. Since it is not reasonable to validate the nationality of every single person involved in making the film (and consequently the trailer which invariably draws on the film) then the logical consequence is that trailers would not be permitted on Wikipedia if this were the case. The longstanding view on this issue is that trailers prior to 1978 that did not carry a copyight notice are in the US public domain. The situation changed somewhat in 1996 when the URAA restored the copyright on foreign works: this may apply to the James Bond films which are produced in the UK, except for the fact that copyright is held by United Artists (and subsequently MGM) and Danjaq, all based in the United States. Films are products of corporate authorship, and in this case the copyright claimants are US companies. Betty Logan (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is my reasoning inconsistent? The images you are talking about on Commons seem to be trailers first published in the United States, whereas this is a trailer for a British film. There is no such thing as corporate authorship. You seem to mix up authorship with ownership of copyright. The author is always, and without exception, a natural person, whereas the initial owner of the copyright may be a legal person such as a company. URAA only takes into account the nationality of the author, not the nationality of the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not sure your reasoning is right. If you think it is, who do you think is the "author"? - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what you wrote: "If at least one of the employees which created content above the threshold of originality was a British citizen or lived outside the United States, then the PD claim fails." I'm saying that applies to many "Hollywood" films (Charlie Chaplin/Hitchcock etc), and is virtually unprovable in the case of most trailers since we do not really know who was involved at an individual level. Since no-one is proposing the removal of Chaplin trailer snapshots simply because he was a British citizen then I question whether the nationalities of the people involved in making the trailers is really a factor. I'm no copyright expert so I speak with no real authority on the matter, but your views seem out of step with the community on this. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I also suggest reading this series of court rulings regarding promotional material for Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff at first (i.e. the defendent had violated Warner's copyright by reusing publicity materials such as lobby cards and trailer shots) but that was overturned on appeal when it was found these materials were indeed in the US public domain. The GWTW case is particularly interesting because Selznick only registered the film in his name, and Loew's who had partly financed the film insisted they were added to the copyright registration. The key fact here is that the chain of copyright (as accepted by a US district court and the US court of Appeal) is established via copyright registration (which was mandatory until 1989), not by the nationality of "involved" individuals. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2014 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:CBS Radio 1952 Publicity Photograph for "Broadway's My Beat" and "Stars over Hollywood".tiff

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:CBS Radio 1952 Publicity Photograph for & ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Missing evidence of publication without notice. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2014 (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:Khasan Israilov.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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Khasan Israilov.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Insufficient source information. The image is sourced to the book "The History of the Chechen People", but there is no information on when the book was published. It looks as if this is a scan of an old paper, so presumably the book was published quite recently. Unfortunately, per Commons:COM:HIRTLE, this is still copyrighted in the United States unless the photograph was published somewhere quite some time ago. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2014 (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:Harper and Inslee.png

 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Harper and Inslee.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See above. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2014 (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.