Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 26, 2020

and any reason we cannot use one of these:

--- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IIRC Vanamonde had questions about the licensing for these or similar images. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * . Can you clarify that, Dan? Do you mean he doesn't think the claimed licence is correct? Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I recall, but I could be wrong, it was a while ago. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I discussed this issue with at ACR, I recall; the website they're extracted from does not seem to be government run, and there's no evidence it actually holds the copyright for those images. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , how about this image from LOC. According to LOC, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed. Therefore, Template:PD-US-not renewed should apply since the Library has made a good faith effort to determine if the copyright was renewed. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a bit beyond my knowledge of licensing. If someone else is willing to stand by it, I have no objections. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That template would require that the image was published before 1963; was it? The LOC page states it was done for LIFE but I don't see it there... Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was published in LIFE on Jun 14, 1954. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks. In that case I agree with your reasoning. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great!, I will take care of the rest. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)