| Media copyright questions | |
|---|---|
|
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.
If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
| |
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|---|
 Archives | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| This page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 7 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Need some help finding actual sources of images
Is there an expert around here that is great at tracking down actual sources of photos that have been freely shared on the internet for years? - not Reddit or whatever, etc...this is for an event that happened in the 1920s, but not far enough away for public domain to kick-in for all the images. I'm sure there is more than one expert around here, if I could get multiple experts that would be even GREATER. Seriously, I need some help with being able to correct/adjust the source parameters on about 8 image-File pages on Commons for an article I want to submit someday soon to a WP:FAC. Post your account names below and you'll be hired! No pay but Wiki-pats on the back will be forthcoming if you can help me solve this issue. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: Whether we will be able to help with your issue will very much depend on what images you are referencing. So I'm afraid that you'll have to provide additional information. GMGtalk 18:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo & SusunW and any other possible helper-types:
Ok, yeah, here we go. The article is Bath School disaster, the article has been undergoing a peer review on Talk:Bath School disaster prior to my possibly submitting it for FAC. The disaster happened in 1927, so far as I know some of the photos appeared first in Ellsworth's book published in 1927 so public domain doesn't apply for some of the Files. This online rendering of Ellsworth's book was privately republished by the Clinton County Historical Society in 1981 but that private printing is also out of print. I did find one source - a 2017 article 22 things you may not have known about the 1927 Bath school massacre on Mlive.com by a Julie Mack that claims the source of most of these photos as Source: Michigan Historical Archives but I don't know if those are the official State of Michigan's Archives. A 2017 Smithsonian Magazine article uses some photos of the disaster and states "Courtesy of Arnie Bernstein", who wrote Bath Massacre: America's First School Bombing but that book wasn't published until 2009...
An additional wrinkle is that these photos have been freely shared all over the internet - in blogs, magazine & newspaper articles, TV news reports, Reddit, pinterest, etc. - so trying to track down the actual/initial sources doesn't seem that simple or easy.
Anyway, the photos are as follows:
- File:Bath Consolidated School.jpg
- File:AndrewKehoe.jpg - This is the only known photograph of the perpetrator of the disaster, so I think it would qualify under the no free equivalent of WP:NFCCP. So far as I know the photo is undated and photos taken in 1924 are now in the public domain so maybe it could be public domain.
- File:Bath School dynamite2.jpg
- File:Kahoe House.jpg
- File:Kahoe House remains-east.jpg
- File:Bath School Disaster-east.jpg
- File:Kehoe car.jpg
- File:Keyhoe sign.jpg
I hope this is enough detail...many of these photos were added to Wikipedia or to Commons back before I even started editing here. I really need to save them and be able to use them in this article. Thanks everyone - Shearonink (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- One last word - I have to go off-WP for most of the next 24 hours. If someone posts here I won't be able to get back to it until maybe tomorrow/Wednesday or later. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- I could really use some help with this... Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could still use some help, remaining hopeful... Shearonink (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm... Well Shearonink.. I don't think your original ping went through. (Repinging SusunW also.) It seems likely that many of these photos are from exactly 1927, meaning that they won't fall into public domain for the next three years. The only other recourse is to figure out who the photographer was, but you're right. It's difficult to make heads or tails with so many versions available, mostly probably taken from exactly here. GMGtalk 18:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I finally corresponded with an author who wrote a book about the disaster, the photos that they used were claimed as public domain. Ordered their book so after it arrives I can look at the sources/permissions in the book itself and will go from there. In the meantime, will continue to poke around the internet to see what I can find.
- Some of the pics date from before 1927, for instance that pic of Kehoe and the main pic of the school probably dates from 1922 when the building opened for use, but, again every version of the school pic (plus Kehoe) I have seen is undated. If any of you image mavens around here have some ideas or could do some research on your own on any of these files that would be awesome. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks GreenMeansGo, I didn't get the earlier ping as you surmised. Shearonink, trying to follow the links on commons from where the original images were scanned seems to go back to this page, but many of the links there are now dead. I concur that the photos most likely originated in 1927 and without an author are hard to authenticate in copyright.gov as to whether a renewal might have been obtained or filed. I am promising nothing, but will do a search of newspaper.com and newspaperarchives.com and see if I can help. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Major thanks going out to GreenMeansGo and to SusunW. I know the standards for FA are very high, would like to try to get everything nailed down before I take the article to FAC. Shearonink (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks GreenMeansGo, I didn't get the earlier ping as you surmised. Shearonink, trying to follow the links on commons from where the original images were scanned seems to go back to this page, but many of the links there are now dead. I concur that the photos most likely originated in 1927 and without an author are hard to authenticate in copyright.gov as to whether a renewal might have been obtained or filed. I am promising nothing, but will do a search of newspaper.com and newspaperarchives.com and see if I can help. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm... Well Shearonink.. I don't think your original ping went through. (Repinging SusunW also.) It seems likely that many of these photos are from exactly 1927, meaning that they won't fall into public domain for the next three years. The only other recourse is to figure out who the photographer was, but you're right. It's difficult to make heads or tails with so many versions available, mostly probably taken from exactly here. GMGtalk 18:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could still use some help, remaining hopeful... Shearonink (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I could really use some help with this... Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink, I find no sourcing for the consolidated school image in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, archive.org, or hathitrust. For the image of Kehoe, a McGill University site gives the source as Ellsworth, Monty J. The Bath School Disaster (1928) but states it is a reprint. Having no access to the source, I have no idea if Ellsworth says where he got it or if by reprint, he simply means he copied the photograph and 1928 would then be its first publication. A name search of Kehoe results in nothing except a marriage notice prior to 1927 in newspapers.com or newspaperarchives.com (though there are several mentions of his wife). Still working on the other images. SusunW (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- The chimney and car, and all of these are marked copyright by the National Editorial Association and were published by the Associated Press. Could be that a search of copyright.org would confirm no renewal, but the tag that they were not copyrighted at the time of creation is incorrect. Still working on it. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- SusunW Forgive my ignorance but how are you seeing the claimed copyright status by AP/NEA re:these images? Shearonink (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- See, it is a sticky wicket with these photographs, they've been freely reprinted in the intervening years in all sorts of publications and are also all over the internet as well. Thank you for looking into the sourcing.
- Re: the Ellsworth book...Monty Ellsworth was a neighbor of Kehoe's, his son survived the blast at the school. The photo of Kehoe - the only one of Kehoe that I have found - predates 1927 and in my opinion was most probably a personal photo belonging to Ellsworth since the two families were friendly with each other. Also, the Cornell cite is incorrect - the Ellsworth book was privately published in 1927 and there was a private reprint in 1981.
- I know you probably know this already but the photo of the whole Kehoe farmhouse dates from before 1927, the school photo also dates from before 1927. Shearonink (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Shearonink the deal is that it doesn't matter when they were made, it matters when they were first published (unless you can prove they were taken before 1900 and never previously published is my understanding). So, you must be able to determine when they were first published. I've now spent a couple of hours searching and gone through several hundreds of images of this disaster, and they all seem to be credited to NEA. On the previous clip, it says point blank, "copyright 1927, NEA Services, Inc." One image is weird, as both NEA and International Illustrated News, which apparently made a derivative image and stuck their name on it, claim to be the originators. A lot of reprints of the images without crediting NEA occurred, so you are right, it appears that the author is unknown, but I'd bet $ on the fact that they were the source of most of the images reprinted. You are right, Worldcat confirms the Ellsworth book was first privately printed in 1927. If you can get a copy of the 1927 version, (https://www.worldcat.org/title/bath-school-disaster/oclc/6743232?referer=br&ht=edition search here] for a library), you might be able to confirm what images came from it, but they would still be under copyright in the US until 2022. SusunW (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- One more tidbit, in the event that Ellsworth took the photos in the book, he died in 1974, thus images taken by him are not usable until 2045. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, let's say that the copyright status is murky at best or not quite clear...can we say that "these are the only existing images of these events/people" type of licensing or rights or...? Regardless of the copyright status, there is a certain right of the public to know about and of historical events I would think... Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- The public does know about it, and there are plenty of free images already in that article, so they would not be permitted as nonfree. In a couple more years, those images will be usable, but it seems they are not today unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that they're PD. If copyright status is "murky or unclear", we assume that media is under copyright until conclusively demonstrated otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. But. "plenty of free images". Plenty... Already in the article? If we take out all of apparently problematic images no images are left. Technically and apparently all of the images are under a copyright?issues? cloud. Don't know what to do at this point... Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Shearonink, I would ask Clindberg who is an expert with renewals, if he's available. He helped me on some tricky images for a FA that fell in that copyrighted between 1925 and 1963, but not renewed and published in between 1925 and 1978 without copyright notice images. I can only tell you from my experience, that if you cannot demonstrate clearly the status, the images won't be allowed for FA. SusunW (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- SusunW *sigh*...I know, I know. I guess if the images' sourcing/permission issues can't be cleaned-up to a T pre-FAC then I won't submit - I feel a certain measure of responsibility to maintain the images alongside the article for historicity's sake. Thanks for your help in all this, hopefully Clindberg will happen along and be able to assist. Shearonink (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I can't find a renewal for the 1927 book -- that should be public domain. There are credits etched into many of the photos from that book, but I can't read them on the web.archive.org link given. Anything published at the time would have needed to be renewed in 1954 and 1955; there are very few photographs renewed. See the UPenn pages at https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ for links to the actual volumes (and Stanford has a search tool for older book renewals only at https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals ). Photos could of course have been renewed individually or as part of a book or magazine, but the vast majority of photos published in that era were not renewed. Still, searches should be done. If you can't find renewals by the NEA in the photo section for those years that may be enough for that photo. Just knowing that photos were published at that time is extremely helpful, since that limits the search possibilities (and we know they will definitely be PD-US-expired come 2023). Also, no daily newspaper outside of New York City renewed issues prior to 1945, so any photos in newspapers that were by newspaper staff should be OK. Photos reprinted from other sources would have had a different copyright owner, and you'd need to search for renewals by that copyright owner instead. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see you here Clindberg but I'll be frank...I'm not sure I understood what you just said. I'm trying to look for Ellsworth/Bath School/Bath School disaster/National Editorial Association at the two links you posted above but wow...this is overwhelming. For instance - do I have to look in every single volume of every single year at the UPenn link?
- Ellsworth's book's original publication was privately printed with no publisher identified and then I keep on finding assorted private printings (2 new ones today): 1981 (printed by Clinton County Historical Society), 1991(Bath School Museum Committee), 1995 (Bath School Museum Committee, Bath MI), 2001 (I don't know who had this one printed) but all the versions are considered rare, I could possibly buy one through Alibris or one of the copies available through abebooks or through Amazon with prices ranging from $125 to $569. I just wish I could see the title-page etc of the reprints, that would at least maybe let me know if the copyright was renewed for the reprints. Or not.
- I'll take another stab at this tomorrow, but lol I kind of feel like I don't know what I'm looking for. Shearonink (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I can't find a renewal for the 1927 book -- that should be public domain. There are credits etched into many of the photos from that book, but I can't read them on the web.archive.org link given. Anything published at the time would have needed to be renewed in 1954 and 1955; there are very few photographs renewed. See the UPenn pages at https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ for links to the actual volumes (and Stanford has a search tool for older book renewals only at https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals ). Photos could of course have been renewed individually or as part of a book or magazine, but the vast majority of photos published in that era were not renewed. Still, searches should be done. If you can't find renewals by the NEA in the photo section for those years that may be enough for that photo. Just knowing that photos were published at that time is extremely helpful, since that limits the search possibilities (and we know they will definitely be PD-US-expired come 2023). Also, no daily newspaper outside of New York City renewed issues prior to 1945, so any photos in newspapers that were by newspaper staff should be OK. Photos reprinted from other sources would have had a different copyright owner, and you'd need to search for renewals by that copyright owner instead. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- SusunW *sigh*...I know, I know. I guess if the images' sourcing/permission issues can't be cleaned-up to a T pre-FAC then I won't submit - I feel a certain measure of responsibility to maintain the images alongside the article for historicity's sake. Thanks for your help in all this, hopefully Clindberg will happen along and be able to assist. Shearonink (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Shearonink, I would ask Clindberg who is an expert with renewals, if he's available. He helped me on some tricky images for a FA that fell in that copyrighted between 1925 and 1963, but not renewed and published in between 1925 and 1978 without copyright notice images. I can only tell you from my experience, that if you cannot demonstrate clearly the status, the images won't be allowed for FA. SusunW (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. But. "plenty of free images". Plenty... Already in the article? If we take out all of apparently problematic images no images are left. Technically and apparently all of the images are under a copyright?issues? cloud. Don't know what to do at this point... Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- The public does know about it, and there are plenty of free images already in that article, so they would not be permitted as nonfree. In a couple more years, those images will be usable, but it seems they are not today unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that they're PD. If copyright status is "murky or unclear", we assume that media is under copyright until conclusively demonstrated otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, let's say that the copyright status is murky at best or not quite clear...can we say that "these are the only existing images of these events/people" type of licensing or rights or...? Regardless of the copyright status, there is a certain right of the public to know about and of historical events I would think... Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Clindberg Ok, so I combed through the Stanford database - doing searches for "Ellsworth", "Bath", "Bath School", "Bath School disaster", "National Editorial Association", "Associated Press" - - and nothing's turned up so far. I've been going through the UPenn database and have been unable to find any references to any of the various applicable search terms. If my various searches or any searches that other Wikipedia editors do - if our research doesn't turn up any hits, so the photos are not under copyright...how do I delineate that the photos are public domain or whatever they are? I mean how do I fill out the sources/permissions at their File pages here on Wikipedia or at Commons? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- It would be the license {{PD-US-not renewed}} (same tag name on both Wikipedia and Commons). I did not find the book renewed either, and did not find any photos renewed (the renewal sections for photos are very short). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that. Did run into quite a few greeting-card art renewals from one particular company. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- For renewals, the initial term lasted 28 years, and you had to renew in the last year of that copyright. So, it would have needed to be renewed in 1955. I do sometimes check the year before (since at one point renewals were allowed starting on the 27th anniversary of publication) and the year after (renewals filed very late in the year sometimes were not published until the following year's volumes). If not renewed, items published in 1927 became public domain in 1956 and have remained so. If they were renewed, they get a term of 95 years from publication, which would not be expired yet. But you would have to find the renewal record somewhere for that to be true. I would document the names that you searched for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Clindberg For the text of Ellsworth/The Bath Disaster and for the photos that he used in his book, does it matter that the author died in 1974.
- Is there any special place to search for the newspaper photos? I have already looked for Bath/Bath school/Bath Michigan/Andrew Kehoe in all possible 1927 sources and then in the possible renewal years of 1954/1955/1956....I suppose I need to do searches for "Mad Bomber"/Bomber/Maniac and any other possibly pertinent terms as well... Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Clindberg For the text of Ellsworth/The Bath Disaster and for the photos that he used in his book, does it matter that the author died in 1974.
- No, for the U.S. the copyright term of anything published before 1978 was based on date of publication, with the lifetime of the author not mattering at all. The text of the book is fine, as are any photos he took for the book -- it was not renewed. For copyright renewal searches, it's the name of the copyright owner that is usually the most effective search item. If there are any credits on the photos, make sure to search for those names. Frankly, the odds of something from that era getting renewed are really really small. If you've done a responsible search -- and it sure sounds like you have -- it's probably fine to call them PD-US-not_renewed. If someone can come up with a valid renewal record, it would be revisited, but items published in 1927 have less than three years of copyright remaining even if renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I guess one remaining issue is the photos that have been ascribed to the National Editorial Association with the copyright being held by the Associated Press....I haven't found any renewals for those but will do another sweep & some deep dives tomorrow and this week to make sure that {{PD-US-not renewed}} is going to apply to the pertinent images. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Clindberg I just found a copy of the 2001 printing for sale. Am hopeful the seller will be able to tell me what is on the "7th Printing" (7th. Printing.) title page or printing page. I am assuming it is a facsimile edition, it might just actually be a complete-duplicate of the first printing without any changes for 1st Printing/2nd Printing and so on. If the seller does get back to me with this info (and any possible copyright renewals that I have missed could be on that 7th Printing page), then the issue might be definitively settled... Shearonink (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Clindberg I haven't heard back from the 2001 print-version owner yet but I did find someone who has a copy of the 1981 printing of Ellsworth's book, they are going to email me a photo of the copyright page/printing page so I can see if there's any claimed copyright or if the 1981 printing is simply a facsimile re-print of the 1927 original.
- I have done some more deep-dives into the various copyright listings and so far:
- no known renewal of Ellsworth's book (checked book and pamphlet renewals for 1954/1955/1956)
- no renewal of the various photos of the disaster that appeared in newspapers and were originally copyrighted by National Editorial Association/Associated Press (checked photo renewals for 1954, 1955, 1956) So far, so good...nothing!
- Am hopeful the owner of the 1981 printing will get back to me soon. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I posted about this over at Talk: Bath School disaster but wanted to re-post about it here as well. The owner of the 2001 printing has stated that there is only one copyright notice on the "Copyright/Printed" page and that is "Copyright 1927", the Printings are listed as: 1st printing 1927, 2nd printing 1928, 3rd printing 1981, 4th printing 1984, 5th printing 1991, 6th printing 1995, 7th printing 2001. NO copyright renewal. The Bath Disaster and the photographs it contains are, therefore, public domain. Yeah, I know, I'm not a lawyer but that is my opinion based on my research. Clindberg: if you could weigh in here, I will consider the matter closed and when I nominate Bath School disaster for a FAC, I'll provide a link to this discussion as one of the answers for editors who have questions about the copyright status. I also have a query in to Nikkimaria to see if I need to do any more deep-dives on the photographs in the article that are not from Ellsworth's book and are mostly from newspapers (as in under past claimed copyright from the National Editorial Association/Associated Press). Shearonink (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Clindberg I just found a copy of the 2001 printing for sale. Am hopeful the seller will be able to tell me what is on the "7th Printing" (7th. Printing.) title page or printing page. I am assuming it is a facsimile edition, it might just actually be a complete-duplicate of the first printing without any changes for 1st Printing/2nd Printing and so on. If the seller does get back to me with this info (and any possible copyright renewals that I have missed could be on that 7th Printing page), then the issue might be definitively settled... Shearonink (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I guess one remaining issue is the photos that have been ascribed to the National Editorial Association with the copyright being held by the Associated Press....I haven't found any renewals for those but will do another sweep & some deep dives tomorrow and this week to make sure that {{PD-US-not renewed}} is going to apply to the pertinent images. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, for the U.S. the copyright term of anything published before 1978 was based on date of publication, with the lifetime of the author not mattering at all. The text of the book is fine, as are any photos he took for the book -- it was not renewed. For copyright renewal searches, it's the name of the copyright owner that is usually the most effective search item. If there are any credits on the photos, make sure to search for those names. Frankly, the odds of something from that era getting renewed are really really small. If you've done a responsible search -- and it sure sounds like you have -- it's probably fine to call them PD-US-not_renewed. If someone can come up with a valid renewal record, it would be revisited, but items published in 1927 have less than three years of copyright remaining even if renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
want to upload image
There is a page on a movie (Devi (2020 film)), it has a first look poster but I wanted to know if the first look poster in the REF can be uploaded so it can be put on the page of the movie. I[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matahsart (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
PD-logo?
File:Family Radio 2017 logo.svg looks like it's {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States, but the cross-imagery created between the "F" and "R" might just be enough to be considered copyrightable. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
