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.
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Promotional image/logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Obviouse case, all images by this uploaders are unfree. --
Martin H. (
talk) 07:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
twitter is copyright Twitter, Inc. and therefore we should not take screen-grabs of their website without rationale
Streetjo (
talk) 06:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't see any graphics in the image that could be copyrighted, and I don't think a software system's summation (which this presumably is) of the recent entries counts as creative, so I'm not sure that this one can be copyrighted at all.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 15:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
twitter is copyright Twitter, Inc. and therefore we should not take screen-grabs of their website without rationale
Streetjo (
talk) 06:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't see any graphics in the image that could be copyrighted, and I don't think a software system's summation (which this presumably is) of the recent entries counts as creative, so I'm not sure that this one can be copyrighted at all.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 15:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
This version by user:SkeletalStrong doesn't have a license and information
IngerAlHaosului (
talk) 09:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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: Keep and Delete; the files marked with Y have been kept and those with N (and below) have been deleted.
-FASTILY(TALK) 03:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Per
User:Doncram, "The photo, despite being available at a NPS website, is privately owned and not taken by a Federal employee / not PD." I am fixing a faulty listing of it as a copyvio and have not examined it for myself yet.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 14:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is not a free file. In the same status are:
These should be deleted. And there are various other same-status photos that appear among other valid photos within the Puerto Rico list-articles indexed from
List of RHPs in PR, which should also be identified and deleted. The main discussion for this is at
User talk:Quazgaa#copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos, including links to the National Park Service copyright notice that clarifies photos at its website are not public domain). --
doncram (
talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Ah, thanks for commenting. I had completely forgotten about this group of images. Unless/until Tony gets permission which can be forwarded to OTRS, I'm inclined to agree with you that all of these images need to be assumed non-free.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 14:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Also
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG, which is in same status although was presented in the disucssion at Quazgaa's Talk page as being public domain. --
doncram (
talk) 14:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
There were 52 photos uploaded by Quazgaa in the same timeframe, from April 30 to June 9, all of which are subject to the same issue, which i find by reviewing the NRHP list-articles. These are:
This one is by Jorge Rigau, affiliation which i do not see provided, last photo in photo set accompanying National Register of Historic Places Registration: Cementerio Municipal de Mayagüez / Cementerio Viejo, date=March, 1988, author=Marta Cruz Casse, with State Historic Preservation Office, photo from
Accompanying 19 photos by Jorge Rigau and Felix J. del Campo, from 1988 and 1985. --
doncram (
talk) 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The
Chalet Amill in
Yauco, Puerto Rico is a
Beaux Arts style house that was built in 1914. Its
NRHP nom is written by Armando Morales-Pares (of SHPO) and Jerry Torres Santiago (of Corporacion para la Educacion Cultural de Yauco), and its
accompanying NRHP nom photos are all by Jerry Torres Santiago. So appears either J.T.Santiago or CECY could own copyright. --
doncram (
talk) 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I think that is all of them. I do feel bad that Quazgaa spent as much time in the well-meant effort, but i did actually notify Q of the problem fully as soon as i detected it. --
doncram (
talk) 15:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG Thanks for moving the discussion over here VernoWhitney. I also appreciate letting me know as well. I will also reply to this discussion here to Doncram versus my
talk page. So I hope I am not repeating, just claryfing myself to Doncram, the Image on the left (Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG) was taken by an employee of the institute of Puerto Rican culture(IPRC)...of which an OTRS verified PD license already exists. What I provided you as the link "
here" was the Proof that the photographer was an employee of IPRC as listed on page 5 of the
PDF so I don't understand the insistance that it is not PD.
There may be other Images that fall under this category and I am currently updating the licensing status which I mentioned to Doncram on my talk page. Also mentioned was the request that deletion of these images be delayed until potential PD license is requested by PRSHPO. Currently there is a Wiki Editor (Tony) investigating PD status and pending his findings, I have ceased uploading further images of this type. Also, I find it a little disheartening that this request was not mentioned here since Doncram was my first contact. Seems like there is trigger finger for deletion of these images is all.
Quazgaa (
talk) 20:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I do appreciate
the update to the
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG's documentation, which is substantial. Up to today, it claimed PD by incorrect assertion it was a photo by Federal employee, so I think my editing its page to remove that assertion was justified. I did reference above the discussion at Q's talk page, and while i didn't specifically mention the assertion there of further efforts to get all or some of these resolved, I did/do wish for those to be successful. I am quite happy that you obtained the public domain release/clarification for the IPC ones. --
doncram (
talk) 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I mentioned Tony obliquely above, but that's kind of beside the point. Given the existing OTRS permission, the
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG image is likely public domain (he could have done the photographing while off-duty, but I think we can safely presume PD). As far as the rest go, they are attributed to a wide variety of photographers, so it seems to me that it's at least possible that not all of them were taken by employees of the IPC, which would mean they would require a different OTRS, which I imagine is what Tony has emailed about and is trying to get. I note that at least some of the ones listed above are sourced to the IPC, so maybe the can be resorted by who took which photos since, that would determine the copyright status. If they're determined to be non-free and replaceable (which they most likely are) and deleted, then if OTRS permission is received later they can always be undeleted.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
This sounds very reasonable and fair to me. I apologize for the Mistaken licensing and I will work to fix the images I have uploaded once I hear from Tony.
Quazgaa (
talk) 17:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Attempted Organization of Puerto Rico NRHP photos
Note that this is only a documentation of how they are currently tagged. I am still investigating the photographers and evidence of their associations.
The affiliation is given in Section 11: "Form Prepared By" of the NRHP nomination text document. Section 11 covers author and date of preparation, and is many pages into these documents . For this one it is on page 4 of a 6 page document,
PDF text document here. --
doncram (
talk) 04:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The
Chalet Amill's
NRHP nom is written by Armando Morales-Pares (of SHPO) and Jerry Torres Santiago (of Corporacion para la Educacion Cultural de Yauco (CECY)), and its
accompanying NRHP nom photos are all by Jerry Torres Santiago. So appears either J.T.Santiago or CECY could own copyright. --
doncram (
talk) 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Central High School.JPG - Jorge Rigau - "Negative on file at Colación, Inc. A project carried out by Colación, for the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office"
Thanks for the progress identifying 3 photos done, and providing info on others. The fact that the negatives are at the PR SHPO office is irrelevant though, I believe, based on what i know from other other cases. The national or state offices can routinely require negatives to be submitted, perhaps so they can be ensured of being able to make nice images later for their own use, but that does not mean copyrights were signed over. Same is true for Pennsylvania, for example, where the state office is quite clear that copyrights are not released. It is too bad the National Register organization did not anticipate that it would be helpful, much later when wikipedia would be invented, to have required release of copyrights of photos. They did not though, and, somewhat frustratingly, still don't. --
doncram (
talk) 03:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Okay, so if the location of the negatives doesn't matter - and I'll grant that it's not conclusive, but it may be good for at least some kind of presumption since it doesn't appear to be mandatory here - then the only photo I've seen hard evidence for which explicitly ties it to either of the organizations is
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG. Do you know of more evidence out there that could tie photographers to either organization? The nps website keeps timing out on me. :(
VernoWhitney (
talk) 12:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sorting by photographer and considering further. What is the basis for the 2nd OTRS ticket, labelled PR SHPO ticket? The two photographers appear to be private architects Marisa Gomez and Ester Cardona, working as "Investigationes Bonaire, Inc." in 1984 (per Vega Alta church NRHP nomination text document's section 11, within
this PDF. I believe that there was no process in place to transfer copyright of photos to the PR SHPO then (and there still is not for any state SHPO as far as i know). It is possible they did work under hire of PR SHPO with appropriate transfer required, but I can't tell that from info there. It could also have been a local organization or someone else hiring them, or without transfer of copyright as work for hire. Does the OTRS correspondence actually clearly address that? Article about place now at
Church Inmaculada Conception of Vega Alta. Photo set document at
here. --
doncram (
talk) 04:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The basis is a "Especialista Principal en Propiedad Histórica" (Specialist in Historic Property, per gtranslate) working for the PRSHPO which established that at least some of the photographs (specifically in the context of the Gomez/Cardona ones) were created as contract work and as such were PD (for the same reasons as the IPC ticket). Obviously we're taking their word on the terms of the contract, but I feel it's reasonable to do so in the absence of evidence to the contrary. No other photographers or photos were specifically addressed, thus my sorting above based on a presumption created by the location of the negatives.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Ah, so you are sort of guessing. Actually, perhaps this helps: the two architects and their Investigacione firm authored a Multiple Property Submission on Puerto Rican churches, full report at
http://www.nr.nps.gov/multiples/64000741.pdf. This is linked from the NRHP infobox in the Vega Church article, by the way. The report covered 25 churches (see list at end), of which many then were listed on the NRHP and some were not due to owner objections. I would now guess that the Investigacione firm got a contract to do that study for the PR SHPO. They may well have visited all 25 churches and took photos. I haven't checked, but i think all the items u put under the PR SHPO otrs request are churches that were covered in this study. Further, other churches in the study that became NRHP-listed would have their photos now available. So perhaps there are more photos which could be uploaded and fall under this PR SHPO otrs permission. --
doncram (
talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
In this case we have the permission (or rather their statement that the photos are PD), it's a matter of figuring out which ones they actually took (or contracted to be taken), in order to figure out which ones they actually can release. I'm going to go ahead and adjust the OTRS tags based on the evidence I used to sort them above, since this PUF comes up for review tomorrow. As we've established, this is just a presumption of PD, so if anyone knows of more evidence that's been missed, please speak up.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 01:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Michael Ziegler all rights reserved. No sign of a permission.
MGA73 (
talk) 21:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
No proof of PD claim in the source of the image as far as I can tell. —
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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 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.
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.
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Promotional image/logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Obviouse case, all images by this uploaders are unfree. --
Martin H. (
talk) 07:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
twitter is copyright Twitter, Inc. and therefore we should not take screen-grabs of their website without rationale
Streetjo (
talk) 06:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't see any graphics in the image that could be copyrighted, and I don't think a software system's summation (which this presumably is) of the recent entries counts as creative, so I'm not sure that this one can be copyrighted at all.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 15:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
twitter is copyright Twitter, Inc. and therefore we should not take screen-grabs of their website without rationale
Streetjo (
talk) 06:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't see any graphics in the image that could be copyrighted, and I don't think a software system's summation (which this presumably is) of the recent entries counts as creative, so I'm not sure that this one can be copyrighted at all.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 15:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
This version by user:SkeletalStrong doesn't have a license and information
IngerAlHaosului (
talk) 09:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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: Keep and Delete; the files marked with Y have been kept and those with N (and below) have been deleted.
-FASTILY(TALK) 03:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Per
User:Doncram, "The photo, despite being available at a NPS website, is privately owned and not taken by a Federal employee / not PD." I am fixing a faulty listing of it as a copyvio and have not examined it for myself yet.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 14:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is not a free file. In the same status are:
These should be deleted. And there are various other same-status photos that appear among other valid photos within the Puerto Rico list-articles indexed from
List of RHPs in PR, which should also be identified and deleted. The main discussion for this is at
User talk:Quazgaa#copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos, including links to the National Park Service copyright notice that clarifies photos at its website are not public domain). --
doncram (
talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Ah, thanks for commenting. I had completely forgotten about this group of images. Unless/until Tony gets permission which can be forwarded to OTRS, I'm inclined to agree with you that all of these images need to be assumed non-free.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 14:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Also
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG, which is in same status although was presented in the disucssion at Quazgaa's Talk page as being public domain. --
doncram (
talk) 14:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
There were 52 photos uploaded by Quazgaa in the same timeframe, from April 30 to June 9, all of which are subject to the same issue, which i find by reviewing the NRHP list-articles. These are:
This one is by Jorge Rigau, affiliation which i do not see provided, last photo in photo set accompanying National Register of Historic Places Registration: Cementerio Municipal de Mayagüez / Cementerio Viejo, date=March, 1988, author=Marta Cruz Casse, with State Historic Preservation Office, photo from
Accompanying 19 photos by Jorge Rigau and Felix J. del Campo, from 1988 and 1985. --
doncram (
talk) 02:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The
Chalet Amill in
Yauco, Puerto Rico is a
Beaux Arts style house that was built in 1914. Its
NRHP nom is written by Armando Morales-Pares (of SHPO) and Jerry Torres Santiago (of Corporacion para la Educacion Cultural de Yauco), and its
accompanying NRHP nom photos are all by Jerry Torres Santiago. So appears either J.T.Santiago or CECY could own copyright. --
doncram (
talk) 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I think that is all of them. I do feel bad that Quazgaa spent as much time in the well-meant effort, but i did actually notify Q of the problem fully as soon as i detected it. --
doncram (
talk) 15:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG Thanks for moving the discussion over here VernoWhitney. I also appreciate letting me know as well. I will also reply to this discussion here to Doncram versus my
talk page. So I hope I am not repeating, just claryfing myself to Doncram, the Image on the left (Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG) was taken by an employee of the institute of Puerto Rican culture(IPRC)...of which an OTRS verified PD license already exists. What I provided you as the link "
here" was the Proof that the photographer was an employee of IPRC as listed on page 5 of the
PDF so I don't understand the insistance that it is not PD.
There may be other Images that fall under this category and I am currently updating the licensing status which I mentioned to Doncram on my talk page. Also mentioned was the request that deletion of these images be delayed until potential PD license is requested by PRSHPO. Currently there is a Wiki Editor (Tony) investigating PD status and pending his findings, I have ceased uploading further images of this type. Also, I find it a little disheartening that this request was not mentioned here since Doncram was my first contact. Seems like there is trigger finger for deletion of these images is all.
Quazgaa (
talk) 20:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I do appreciate
the update to the
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG's documentation, which is substantial. Up to today, it claimed PD by incorrect assertion it was a photo by Federal employee, so I think my editing its page to remove that assertion was justified. I did reference above the discussion at Q's talk page, and while i didn't specifically mention the assertion there of further efforts to get all or some of these resolved, I did/do wish for those to be successful. I am quite happy that you obtained the public domain release/clarification for the IPC ones. --
doncram (
talk) 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I mentioned Tony obliquely above, but that's kind of beside the point. Given the existing OTRS permission, the
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG image is likely public domain (he could have done the photographing while off-duty, but I think we can safely presume PD). As far as the rest go, they are attributed to a wide variety of photographers, so it seems to me that it's at least possible that not all of them were taken by employees of the IPC, which would mean they would require a different OTRS, which I imagine is what Tony has emailed about and is trying to get. I note that at least some of the ones listed above are sourced to the IPC, so maybe the can be resorted by who took which photos since, that would determine the copyright status. If they're determined to be non-free and replaceable (which they most likely are) and deleted, then if OTRS permission is received later they can always be undeleted.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
This sounds very reasonable and fair to me. I apologize for the Mistaken licensing and I will work to fix the images I have uploaded once I hear from Tony.
Quazgaa (
talk) 17:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Attempted Organization of Puerto Rico NRHP photos
Note that this is only a documentation of how they are currently tagged. I am still investigating the photographers and evidence of their associations.
The affiliation is given in Section 11: "Form Prepared By" of the NRHP nomination text document. Section 11 covers author and date of preparation, and is many pages into these documents . For this one it is on page 4 of a 6 page document,
PDF text document here. --
doncram (
talk) 04:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The
Chalet Amill's
NRHP nom is written by Armando Morales-Pares (of SHPO) and Jerry Torres Santiago (of Corporacion para la Educacion Cultural de Yauco (CECY)), and its
accompanying NRHP nom photos are all by Jerry Torres Santiago. So appears either J.T.Santiago or CECY could own copyright. --
doncram (
talk) 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
File:Central High School.JPG - Jorge Rigau - "Negative on file at Colación, Inc. A project carried out by Colación, for the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office"
Thanks for the progress identifying 3 photos done, and providing info on others. The fact that the negatives are at the PR SHPO office is irrelevant though, I believe, based on what i know from other other cases. The national or state offices can routinely require negatives to be submitted, perhaps so they can be ensured of being able to make nice images later for their own use, but that does not mean copyrights were signed over. Same is true for Pennsylvania, for example, where the state office is quite clear that copyrights are not released. It is too bad the National Register organization did not anticipate that it would be helpful, much later when wikipedia would be invented, to have required release of copyrights of photos. They did not though, and, somewhat frustratingly, still don't. --
doncram (
talk) 03:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Okay, so if the location of the negatives doesn't matter - and I'll grant that it's not conclusive, but it may be good for at least some kind of presumption since it doesn't appear to be mandatory here - then the only photo I've seen hard evidence for which explicitly ties it to either of the organizations is
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG. Do you know of more evidence out there that could tie photographers to either organization? The nps website keeps timing out on me. :(
VernoWhitney (
talk) 12:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sorting by photographer and considering further. What is the basis for the 2nd OTRS ticket, labelled PR SHPO ticket? The two photographers appear to be private architects Marisa Gomez and Ester Cardona, working as "Investigationes Bonaire, Inc." in 1984 (per Vega Alta church NRHP nomination text document's section 11, within
this PDF. I believe that there was no process in place to transfer copyright of photos to the PR SHPO then (and there still is not for any state SHPO as far as i know). It is possible they did work under hire of PR SHPO with appropriate transfer required, but I can't tell that from info there. It could also have been a local organization or someone else hiring them, or without transfer of copyright as work for hire. Does the OTRS correspondence actually clearly address that? Article about place now at
Church Inmaculada Conception of Vega Alta. Photo set document at
here. --
doncram (
talk) 04:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
The basis is a "Especialista Principal en Propiedad Histórica" (Specialist in Historic Property, per gtranslate) working for the PRSHPO which established that at least some of the photographs (specifically in the context of the Gomez/Cardona ones) were created as contract work and as such were PD (for the same reasons as the IPC ticket). Obviously we're taking their word on the terms of the contract, but I feel it's reasonable to do so in the absence of evidence to the contrary. No other photographers or photos were specifically addressed, thus my sorting above based on a presumption created by the location of the negatives.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Ah, so you are sort of guessing. Actually, perhaps this helps: the two architects and their Investigacione firm authored a Multiple Property Submission on Puerto Rican churches, full report at
http://www.nr.nps.gov/multiples/64000741.pdf. This is linked from the NRHP infobox in the Vega Church article, by the way. The report covered 25 churches (see list at end), of which many then were listed on the NRHP and some were not due to owner objections. I would now guess that the Investigacione firm got a contract to do that study for the PR SHPO. They may well have visited all 25 churches and took photos. I haven't checked, but i think all the items u put under the PR SHPO otrs request are churches that were covered in this study. Further, other churches in the study that became NRHP-listed would have their photos now available. So perhaps there are more photos which could be uploaded and fall under this PR SHPO otrs permission. --
doncram (
talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
In this case we have the permission (or rather their statement that the photos are PD), it's a matter of figuring out which ones they actually took (or contracted to be taken), in order to figure out which ones they actually can release. I'm going to go ahead and adjust the OTRS tags based on the evidence I used to sort them above, since this PUF comes up for review tomorrow. As we've established, this is just a presumption of PD, so if anyone knows of more evidence that's been missed, please speak up.
VernoWhitney (
talk) 01:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Michael Ziegler all rights reserved. No sign of a permission.
MGA73 (
talk) 21:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
No proof of PD claim in the source of the image as far as I can tell. —
TheDJ (
talk •
contribs) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)reply
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.
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 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.
have been kept and those with 
(and below) have been deleted.
-
FASTILY
(TALK) 03:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
