Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ruby shoots Oswald.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ruby shoots Oswald.jpg

[edit]

Claimed as {PD-US-not-renewed}, but uploader is unable to explain coherently what queries he used to conclude there was no renewal (see User_talk:Toohool), and page linked from description page [1] asserts that copyright continued to be held by photographer in 2002, which implies renewal, EEng (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Nominator apparently refuses to hear what I've told him, but I searched the copyright renewal database for the photographer's name, the newspaper's name, the names of the subjects who appear in the photo, and variations on those names, and found nothing. The fact that some people have paid for a license for the photo does not prove that it's still under copyright, it only means that some people didn't do their research, or simply chose to be "better safe than sorry". It's notable also that the nominator has apparently been putting a lot of thought into this matter, but is still unable to point to any renewal registration that might cover this image. Toohool (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't make this personal. It's not my job to demonstrate it's not PD; the question having been raised, it's your job to demonstrate it is. What exactly did you search? How do you know the names you listed above are the only ones in play -- how do you know it's not under "Knight Syndicate" or "Reuters"? Where is there anything explaining what the coverage of this database is in the first place? Arguing that something doesn't exist is by nature difficult, but it's the argument you need to make.
    If Commons practice is to accept an editor's statement that "I poked around a bit and didn't find anything so I guess it's PD", then that's fine, but I'd expect to find a policy or guideline somewhere saying that. I've asked you to point to that but you've not responded. That's why we're here. Perhaps some other editor can point to the pertinent guideline. EEng (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have some reason to believe that the renewal would be listed under some other name? If so, please state it. Do you have some policy basis for your argument? If so, please state it. What part of my explanation of what I searched for did you not understand? And if you don't want to "make this personal", maybe don't start off a public discussion by calling an editor incoherent. Toohool (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have some reason to believe that the renewal would be listed under some other name? – Yes: the lack of anything you've pointed to saying that renewals, if they exist, will always be found by searching this database under the photographer's name or the name of the newspaper of original publication, which appears to be your assumption.
    • Do you have some policy basis for your argument? – Yes: the requirement at Commons:Licensing that The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status. That means, at the minimum, that you tell others enough that they can repeat what you did and see what you saw.
    • don't start off a public discussion by calling an editor incoherent – I didn't call you incoherent. I said you've been unable to explain coherently what queries you used. And that remains the case. I've asked you over and over what your queries were (e.g. What exactly did you search?, above) and even now you refuse to say. This is a real problem. For example, at [2] we're told that it's possible for a number of works by a particular author, or published in a particular magazine, to be covered under one blanket copyright that may or may not mention the individual pieces by name.
    As mentioned before, perhaps there's a guideline outlining what efforts the project considers sufficient for a conclusion of nonrenewal. If so that would solve the problem. EEng (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but all of the above just amounts to you being ignorant about the topic of copyright renewal. Unless you're going to get more informed, perhaps we should leave it here and wait for some other people to weigh in. There are many people on Commons who are familiar with the topic. Toohool (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, one of them may be able to explain what you're unable to. EEng (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This editor doesn't seem to have a firm understanding of public domain. Even within the images he posts he references the periodical that published the image. This is one of the most famous images in the world taken while working for The Dallas Times Herald, he is still alive, this is most assuredly a copywritten image and not public domain. --WGFinley (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WGFinley: You mention a number of facts, but can you explain how any of them lead to your conclusion that the image is still under copyright? Or can you explain specifically why {{PD-US-not-renewed}} does not apply to this image? You mention the fact that the photographer is still alive, so it seems you may be thinking of the rules from the Copyright Act of 1976 or subsequent laws, which base the length of copyright on the lifetime of the author plus some number of years, but those apply to works after 1978. This work was published in 1963, so the Copyright Act of 1909 governs it, and that law provided for a term of 28 years, with an option to extend it. You can find a handy summary of all this in the Hirtle chart. Toohool (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Living author makes it much more likely copyright was renewed. You have repeatedly refused to specify how you determined PD in a way that allows your fellow editors to verify that determination; you just insist we should take your word for it. Right now numerous of your uploads are up for deletion at enwp, and it looks likely that a CCI will need to be opened. Not sure what the procedure is at Commons but something similar will likely happen here. EEng (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that makes it more likely copyright was renewed was if the copyright was renewed. Which you're still not able to show. I haven't asked anyone to take my word for anything. I've already told you twice: "I searched the copyright renewal database for the photographer's name, the newspaper's name, the names of the subjects who appear in the photo, and variations on those names, and found nothing." Which part of that is unclear to you? Do you have any ideas of other queries that might turn up the renewal that you so strongly believe exists? Your only suggestion so far has to been to search for other random names like Knight Syndicate and Reuters, for no apparent reason.
As for the deletion discussions on enwp, there are 2 of them (not "numerous"), and so far nobody in either discussion has put forth a plausible reason to delete either file. Toohool (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time -- the very last time:

  • (a) What exactly did you search -- this literal, exact search strings you used? Other editors need to be able to repeat what you did and see what you saw, not just believe your statement that you did something or other, mumble, believe me.
  • (b) How do you know that those are the only strings you need to search to establish non-renewal? Is there something that spells that out? How do you know the rights weren't assigned or transferred?

You keep saying you've responded to questions, but you've repeatedly refused to answer these. EEng (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I disagree with WGFinley that Toohool doesn't seem to have a firm understanding of public domain - the conversation on User_talk:Toohool#File:Ruby_shoots_Oswald.jpg actually demonstrates that Toohool knows quite a bit about copyright renewal. In most cases like this I'd side with him, I did a few cocatalog database searches and can't find a renewal there either. (Including all the Jackson Roberts in 1990 and 1991.) We can't prove a negative, it just doesn't work that way, but this is the best we have.
(2) The Library of Congress is neutral, it basically doesn't say that the photograph is in the public domain, but that is just the default case. Caveat downloader.
(3) However, EEng's and WFinley's points that this is one of the most famous photographs in the world, our article about the photographer, which is maybe half only about this one photograph, and the news article documenting that this is something the photographer is still making money from licensing, all imply we need to be more careful than usual. We don't want to make a mistake that could seriously hurt this person.
The photographer is still alive, and, as above, actively involved with usage of the photo. Does someone want to write him an email asking for the renewal information? I mean, there is some chance he just won't answer, especially if he did forget to renew it, since he does have a financial interest, but it does seem we should at least try. If he gives us the renewal information that will at least settle the issue one way. --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think contacting the photographer is an excellent idea. Obviously demonstrating a negative (I won't say proving -- we're looking for a reasonable level of confidence, whatever that is) is always difficult, but my point all along has simply been that, surely, there's some Commons guidance on what represents an appropriate level of effort in doing that. It can't be one editor saying, "I searched a lot of ways, but I can't be bothered to say what those were so just trust me." In particular, it seems that the question of knowing what the right names are to search, when we knows rights were transferred from the original owner, may be a very difficult one -- how do we know the owner isn't "RHJ Rights Holding Company"? EEng (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I question whether Jackson owns the copyright. The image came from Flickr with a CC-By-2.0 license, so Commons is clear of any infringement claims under that license; therefore EEng would be correct about PD status. LOC lists the image as "Dallas Times-Herald photograph, taken by Bob Jackson, from the Associated Press. The published image itself is here and it is copyrighted by the Dallas Times-Herald right on their front page. Jackson was a work-for-hire on assignment, and would not own the copyright. Then we have the following statement published in the Denver Post: Today, a print of the shot hangs above the TV in Jackson’s living room. In a safety deposit box in a Colorado Springs bank, the photographer keeps the original negative given to him by the publisher, Jim Chambers, who said, “I want Bob to make as much money off this picture as possible.” According to Stanford and copyright laws that were in effect before 1978, a work that was published without copyright notice fell into the public domain but the caveat in this case is that the Dallas Times-Herald owned the copyright and they did make note of it at publication in 1963. Even if DTH transferred their copyright to Jackson, if Jackson failed to note the word “Copyright” or a © (a “c” in a circle) with his name as the copyright owner, the work would enter the public domain. That rule was repealed; copyright notice is not required for works first published after March 1, 1989 (although works first published prior to that date must still include notice). The fact that people can now download different resolutions of that image from LOC, I would venture a guess and say it's iffy to call it PD but appropriate per the Flick'r license. Consensus will have to make the final determination to be on the safe side. I'm going to ping User:Sphilbrick since he is familiar with how best to handle these types of issues on Commons. Atsme Talk 📧 18:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
  • Some random person posting on Fickr with whatever CC license they feel like ("Taken on August 13, 2010" -- yup, got it) doesn't relieve us of liability (not that liability is what we're actually worried about -- what we're worried about is following our own rules and doing the right thing, as GRuban references).
  • The LOC does not offer the image for download; quite the opposite, full resolution is only available by personal visit to the LOC. While (as someone noted) treating something as non-PD is LOC's default, you'd certainly expect LOC to make the effort to establish PD if that was possible, for reasons that must surely be obvious in this particular case.
  • Jackson failed to note the word “Copyright” or a © (a “c” in a circle) with his name ... – I think none of has the expertise to know for sure what name would have to appear in the notice once the copyright is transferred. See my note above to GRuban.
What's bizarre about this is that an enormous amount of editor time is being invested in one person's crusade to declare all kinds of things PD when we have perfectly good fair-use rationales for them already. EEng (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JACKSON, BOB.
The President's accused killer as executioner's bullet pierces body. Photo. (In The Dallas times herald, Nov. 25, 1963, p. 1-A) Appl. author: The Times Herald Print. Co. d.b.a The Dallas Times Herald, employer of work made for hire. © Times Herald Print Co. d.b.a The Dallas Times Herald; 25Nov63; BB25474.

Hopefully this gives folks some more confidence, as it gives us even more ways to search that should locate the renewal record, if it exists: the title, the corporation's name, and the registration number. Doing keyword searches for the given title (or various combinations of words from it) finds no record of it, nor does "Times Herald Print" or "Times Herald Printing". Neither does the registration number (which should appear in the database as BB0000025474, as the number of digits is fixed as 10, but I searched everything from BB25474 to BB000000000025474 for good measure). Toohool (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thus very nicely proving my point, from the very beginning, that thinking you can just guess what you need to search is foolish. "Bob" indeed. EEng (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because when I said I searched for the photographer's name and variations on it, that certainly wouldn't have included the most common variant of his first name, or the name to which the photo was credited on publication. Toohool (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Did you? You refused to say. EEng (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does give more confidence. But we should make an honest try to ask Mr. Jackson. I can't find a way to email him directly, but this article, was written 2 years ago by a person at the newspaper he used to work at and does have that writer's email, so I'm guessing she can get in touch with him. There is also probably his linked-in page, but it's not very active. We should decide who is going to try to reach out and how, so we don't get twenty people all writing slightly different queries. User:EEng? User:Toohool? Or I can do it if necessary, though I'm not as involved as either of these two, so might take more time to do it. The key point is "was the copyright on the photograph renewed, and would you be so good as to point us to the renewal record?" --GRuban (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's Toohool's baby. But please, be respectful. And I'd still like someone to remind me -- why are we going to all this trouble when there's no question this can be used under fair use? EEng (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VEGAN --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair request. I've sent an email to the Sixth Floor Museum about getting in touch with him, as they seem to have had a long-standing relationship with him. Toohool (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone from the museum replied and agreed to pass the question along to Jackson. Haven't received a response to the question yet. Toohool (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response to the question. The person from the museum confirmed 2 weeks ago that they passed the question along to Jackson. Toohool (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping up with this. After a point there's only so much we can do. --GRuban (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: USCO records for a renewal around 1992 are on line.Since the renewal would have been around 1992, I searched for entries from 1989 to 1993. I used "Bob Jackson" and "Robert Jackson" and got no hits. "Dallas Times Herald" and "Times Herald Print Co." got around 125 hits each, none of them relevant. I note that the paper ceased publication in 1991, the year before the renewal would have been required. It seems entirely possible that no one attended to the renewal. The assets of the Herald were bought by the Dallas Mrning News, so I also did a search on that and got 151 hits for the time period, none of them relevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ruby_shoots_Oswald.jpg&oldid=422069856"