Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Wikiwatcher1 (talk | contribs) m →File:Streisand - agency photo.jpg: fix sig |
Wikiwatcher1 (talk | contribs) →File:Streisand - agency photo.jpg: add link |
||
Line 82:
:::::The "evidence we do have" is grossly insufficient. What we're being asked to decide here is whether a photograph found on an auction site, without any direct evidence as to the date or manner of original publication, should be presumed to be a free image simply because the lion's share of such images are free. (Much of the discussion here ignores the doctrine of "limited publication" (see [http://books.google.com/books?id=a-yu2-JUQNAC&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq=%22limited+publication%22&source=bl&ots=5TT1cXGjnH&sig=5-MkVitlDWns_mjY6uRwLS1I9Ho&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X4kGUvKEGYWbygH68wE&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22limited%20publication%22&f=false], and note the treatise's comment that "the courts have pushed the limited publication doctrine to its farthest reaches to avoid a forfeiture of copyright"). That presumption would not be a rational one to indulge in terms of the WMF policies regarding free content for reuse by third parties. [[User:The Big Bad Wolfowitz|The Big Bad Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:The Big Bad Wolfowitz|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, but your source supports the ''opposite'' conclusion about "limited publication" for publicity photos. The examples given are for unpublished manuscripts given to the trade for criticism or review, architectural plans given out to contractors for bids, or advance copies of a speech ''before'' it was presented. Of course such confidential materials would be "limited." Then consider a more relevant legal source, such as ''Warner Bros. Entertainment v. X One X Productions,'' (2011), where the court affirmed that publicity stills ''were'' in the public domain because they had not been published with the required notice or because their copyrights had not been renewed, and that the mere ''dissemination'' of such photos constituted a "general publication" without notice. And this fits the basic [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf#page=3 definition] of publication per the U.S. copyright law, that "publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display."
::::::As [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_still#Public_domain Nimmer states], "Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible." It's another reason why some of your latest [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Baker,_Carroll_-_Macro_-_Harlow_-_65.jpg deletion requests] are erroneous. --[[User:Wikiwatcher1|Wikiwatcher1]] ([[User talk:Wikiwatcher1|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
| |||