Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janis Joplin Passport.jpg
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.
I doubt it's cc, it may be gov work, but still we don't know source of the photo. Looks like flickr washing. Also applies to dw File:Janisjoplin.jpg. Herr Kriss (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Government work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, passport, but what about photo? And why it's cc? Herr Kriss (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the act of surrendering the photo for the passport GIVING ownership to the government? A passport is a legal government document, so anything included in it, even the picture should be a work of the government. I could be wrong, but that makes the most sense to me. Raeky (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but you don't give a signed document that you (or person who made that photo) give copyrights to gov. I think that we should call somebody who knows US law well. Herr Kriss (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the act of surrendering the photo for the passport GIVING ownership to the government? A passport is a legal government document, so anything included in it, even the picture should be a work of the government. I could be wrong, but that makes the most sense to me. Raeky (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, passport, but what about photo? And why it's cc? Herr Kriss (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. This work is public domain (including the photo, which is incidental to the image as a whole) Bastique demandez 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
this photo was not "published" in 1969 (appearing on passport does not equal publication) Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- A source for that? For something to be published in the sense of copyright law, it does not need a publishing company etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Publication is defined in the copyright statute as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted No evidence has been given that this was published before it appeared on Flickr. If that is the case, the photograph, at least, is in copyright until 2089 (120 years after creation). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
