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 ⚡ 01:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Munster Panzermuseum Mercedes Benz G-Modell UN.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• I am the original uploader of this file. I did not get the permission of the museum this item is displayed at, prior to publishing. This is required. 88.71.93.80 ( talk) 00:18, 16 February 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Hampton Hawes.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hampton Hawes 1.JPG Magog the Ogre ( talk) 00:23, 16 February 2011 (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 debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 - the burden of proof is on those seeking to retain the content. I find it highly unlikely that someone as concerned with copyright as the AP wouldn't have been diligent in renewing their copyrights. Unless you can find some actual reason to believe that they didn't renew it, we can't just pretend they didn't. -- B ( talk) 00:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Bert Acosta Obituary 1954.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no evidence that copyright was not renewed for this article. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Where is the notice of renewal? I can't prove a negative, but if you link to the notice then we know one exists. I can see renewals for the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, but I have not found one for this paper. What have you found that you can bring to the table? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I don't need to have found anything other than the fact that there's no evidence shown to support the public domain tag. For this file to be kept, there must be clear evidence that copyright was not renewed. If you find that evidence, add it to the description page and then there's no problem. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

There is no document filed to show that a copyright is not renewed, only one filed when one is renewed. It is like asking someone to prove that flying saucers don't exist, yet if you show me a real flying saucer, then I am wrong. That is what we call evidence of absence. I can show you my pocket is empty, but I can't show you that God doesn't exist or flying saucer's don't exist. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Well that's not the point. As it is written at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others: "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." (I added the italics to make that clear. This is not a case where the work falls into the public domain no matter what.) That's a Wikipedia policy based on copyright law. Therefore it must be obeyed. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Unless ... they fall into the public domain which is what happened if you didn't renew the copyright before the longer copyright period was recognized in the US. Newspapers were ephemeral and only larger ones paid the fees to renew, such as the New York Times, because the Times was reprinting their movie and theater reviews into books. Unless you envisioned the Internet in the 1960s or for some reason thought people would pay to read an old newspaper, papers didn't see the need to expend money to renew. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

But that isn't at all what we call explicit evidence that copyright was renewed. You may be right, but this needs to be verified so as to not infringe anyone's copyright. Otherwise, the file must go. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Huh? We are talking about evidence of absence that it was not renewed. Your talking about evidence of renewal. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Third opinion

I'm responding to a request for a third opinion. I'm an everyday user who is not a lawyer and can't imagine suing anyone for publishing an image of a 1954 obituary with a clear statement of its presumed copyright status. This specific image licensing dispute could be resolved by obtaining definitive information from the Connecticut Post about the current copyright status of obituaries published in 1954 in the Bridgeport Telegram.

A survey of discussions here and on Commons suggests to me that the question of whether {{ PD-US-not renewed}} requires evidence that a copyright was not renewed has not been thoroughly and conclusively resolved. Either or both of the editors in disagreement here may wish to open that broader discussion on Commons:Template talk:PD-US-not renewed. – Athaenara ✉ 07:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the feedback. Could I ask one more question, though? What will (most likely) happen to this image when the 2-week period expires if no new information is obtained? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what's most likely but if there's a consensus to keep or the nominator withdraws the request it might be kept. If there's a consensus to delete or the uploader requests it per {{ db-g7}} it might be deleted. – Athaenara ✉ 05:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete: Image is of the entire text of an article supplied by the Associated Press, a commercial content provider. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: Soundvisions1 added a speedy delete tag to the image. Dude, every newspaper and every magazine and and every television network is a "commercial content provider". You haven't discovered some new secret insight. As I said before, in the style of Gertrude Stein: public domain is public domain is public domain. Please, please, please do not try and circumvent the already difficult image review process for a public domain by non-renewal tag, by adding a speedy tag based on your personal insight, leave a comment like everyone else. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Reply: Yes I added a speedy tag - it blatantly fails Wikipedia policy as being from the Associated Press. The byline clearly says it and you neglected to mention that as the "source". You need to become far more familiar with Wikipedia polices, and probably copyright as well. If anything what you are doing here is adding comments "based on your personal insight" and *not* based on long standing Wikipedia policies. In other words "please do not try and circumvent" these policies. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Your problem is that you are conflating Wikipedia fair use policy with United States copyright policy and that is why an independent third party removed your speedy delete tag. You are welcome to join the debate on what falls into a non-renewal public domain, or can search for a renewal notice filed with the Library of Congress or the copyright office for the images tagged. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The issue *here* is about copyright, however I was extremely clear - it blatantly fails Wikipedia policy as being from the Associated Press, which was not mentioned. The entire discussion is based on an assumption that the article belongs to a newspaper when in reality it does not. The editor that removed the tags also was in the wrong and I have left a message on their talk page concerning that. Again - if you wish to "debate on what falls into a non-renewal public domain" feel free, however I discovered the image and saw the byline to the Associated press. That is the issue at hand. Again - have an issue with the policy on how Wikipedia uses content from any commerical content provider? Take it up on policy pages not here. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 06:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The obituary has a "Denver, Sept 1 — (AP)" dateline. Is it really difficult to find out whether AP did or did not renew copyright on mid-1950s obituaries? – Athaenara ✉ 14:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete in the absence of reasonable evidence that the copyright was not renewed. This might comprise an extract from an alphabetical list of publications from the year, noting the absence of this one. While I sympathize with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s point on proving a negative, Wikipedia policy is clear. It is for the uploader to prove an image is usable. Stifle ( talk) 15:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I am surprised by how far this discussion has led. This was the exact same issue, but look at the outcome. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

That was a debate? There were two remarks for that article. Again, you cannot prove a negative. There is nothing I can pull out of my pocket that says "I did not renew my copyright", only one that says that I did. Any image or article under the non-renewal category could be deleted by this un-logical reasoning. My long-time friend Stifle or my new friend User:Jsayre64 can find a the renewal notice, and boom, debate over. And I will gladly agree to have it deleted. Working with others we scoured the Library of Congress and found the renewals for the New York Times, but nothing for the Associated Press or this newspaper. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

What Stifle said. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You are making what should be a dispassionate search for a copyright notice into something very personal. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Really, I only happened across this because I declined a speedy on it (and that only because it wasn't an obvious case). But research beats the hell out of bickering anyday. Since this work was published in 1954, it can even easily be researched from my living room—the copyright office keeps electronic records of registrations and renewals made in or after 1978, and this work would have come up for renewal in 1982 (28 years).

Now, this keeping in mind that at the time, initial registration was also required. This was just an obituary, and it's quite possible AP didn't find this worth the registration fee to start with, and never registered it at all (and in 1954, no registration = no copyright). But since I can't find records from 1954 without going to the copyright office, let's operate on the presumption they did, and it came up for renewal.

So, run some searches. We'll run these at the copyright office's record search page, [1]. First, searching for "bert acosta" and "bertrand acosta" as a keyword (quoted strings) returns no results. "bridgeport telegram" returns no results. Obviously, "associated press" returns about a ton of results, but none when crossed with the others.

So, if this image is owned by AP, they never renewed the copyright. If this was just a reprint by the AP, the original writer never renewed (and probably never registered) a copyright. It doesn't appear the New Bridgeport Telegram ever renewed its copyrights at all (and that's not unusual, it probably wasn't worth it for most newspapers to pay to renew rights on material that was approaching three decades old).

Make of that what you will. I'll leave it up to the closer whether that's sufficient to call this PD or not. I'd tend to say it is, as I can't think of any other reasonable search terms that would find a renewal on this if it were there, and even if this was copyrighted in 1954 (which itself is doubtful), non-registration in 1982 means public domain. But why not do 15 minutes of research rather than several days worth of yelling? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. As always a third party opinion helps cool heated debates. I can see why the New York Times filed renewals, they had been publishing movie reviews and theater reviews in book form. Most publishers considered newspapers as ephemera. Some New York papers published up to 5 editions a day because news became stale so quickly. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Just to comment on the search element - A.P regularly put out end of year news compilations. As Seraphimblade has pointed out "associated press" returns about a ton of results and that they can not search for 1954 without going to the copyright office. That is one part of the key issues at play. As with other outlets it is always "cheaper" to register copyright via a collection rather than individually. Does anyone know 100% that there is nothing under copyright that covers this? Unless someone here has visited the copyright office in D.C and searched the only honest answer would be "no".

Beyond all of this - what purpose is this copy of an A.P wire article even serving? There is zero need to use this in the Bertrand Blanchard Acosta article, and there are already inline citations to articles such as Milestones, Sep. 13, 1954 and NY Time article on death. There is even a cite to the Washington Post (Bert Acosta, Atlantic Flier, Dies.". Washington Post. September 2, 1954. "Bert B. Acosta, spectacular barnstorming pilot who, with Admiral Richard E. Byrd, made the first trans-Atlantic flight in a multi-engined plane, died yesterday from advanced tuberculosis in a Denver sanatorium, the Associated Press reported.) I don't see where anyone is questioning the fact he died so there is no need to offer up "proof" that needs to be hosted at Wikipedia that the obit ran and/or is sourced to the A.P. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You are confusing two issues as you did before. I know the concept isn't easy, so let's take it from the top again. We have: Initial copyright registrations and renewal notices. A visit to the copyright office would show if there was an initial registration, but since a renewal notice wasn't filed by 1982, even if it was initially copyrighted, it still falls into public domain.

The argument is whether it is public domain, not the value to readers. Readers can determine that themselves by clicking on it or not clicking on it. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:23, 23 February 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Jelavic ERMS oot MA.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• copyvio from here, located via EXIF info in file. evident copyvio as no attribution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:31, 16 February 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

File:NANCY ALLEN ACTRESS.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Don't believe license. Every image this user has uploaded has been problematical and this looks like a picture taken from a TV screen. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete: as a blatant copyvio. Even without a true source listed this is clear that it is a photo taken of a television screen. Meta/EXIF shows it was taken May 13, 2010 - that hardly matches the summary that states "Personal photo taken by Vilmos Zsigmond in the early 1980s". Also extremely doubtful this uploader is Vilmos Zsigmond. Based on the users other uploads they only up non-free material. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 04:32, 16 February 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Excellenceaward.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• This was set for deletion in September of last year however it was part of the mass "self" = "source, author and permission so it is ok" no permissions/no source tag removals and was unnoticed (at least by me) until now. User doesn't appear to have been active since 2008 and all of their uploads have been deleted via various methods - F4, F11, and PUI. It is also unused. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 04:20, 16 February 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Zera3a Alex.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• claims to be emblem of Alexandria University - if legit, is derivative and uploader would not be (c) holder Skier Dude ( talk) 05:15, 16 February 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Tabaq haraz.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• Was about to move to Commons when I realized this may be considered non-free art, thought I should list for opinions. Kelly ^hi! 17:04, 16 February 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Shinto Barnstar.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shinto Barnstar2.png Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (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 debate was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Sviatoslav.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).

• see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sviatoslav statue at Belgorod.jpg. The commons image is currently being used on Sviatoslav I of Kiev, Sikha, and List of equestrian statues in Russia; as such, this image may qualify for fair use. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (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.