Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon-visits-china.jpg
EXIF claims thi is a work by "Keystone/Getty Images" and not by an employee of the US Gov, which is needed to claim PD-USGov. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Digital cameras as consumer product did not existed until circa 1990, so, the Exif in this picture should not be considered as a reliable copyright claiming. I don't think that Getty Images can hold the copyright of this picture very likely to be taken by a POTUS oficier in the 70s (and Getty Images was founded in 1995). If you can't believe this is a work by POTUS, consider that this picture lacks of a copyright notice,, then, if this picture has been published in the U.S. before 1977, {{PD-US-No notice}} could be applied; if the copyright is applied under the PRC jurisdiction, it may not be in the PD until 2022. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- (Getty is just a "re-seller"of images. The EXIF, and in turn Getty,claims that this is a work by "Staff, Keystone".) Also, I've yet to see evidence that this wan't published without notice. It may have been unpublished until Getty started selling it, or been released with notice back in the 70s. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- A virtually identical image appears here ( https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-02-28/anniversary-recalling-nixons-trip-china-40-years-later ) with National Archives given as the source. Another appears here ( http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150918170546-14-chinese-leaders-nixon-zedong-1972---restricted-super-169.jpg ) which gives w:Sovfoto as a source. There is also a color version ( https://web.archive.org/web/20130124113013/http://nixonfoundation.org/files/2010/04/china81.jpg ) from the w:Richard Nixon Foundation website, and the same ( https://www.gilderlehrman.org/store/51-nixon-and-mao-1972 ) from a print seller, who credits the w:Richard Nixon Presidential Library.--Lommes (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: The Nixon China trip had both White House staff photographer(s) and photographers from various news organizations. It is likely that a mixture of them were all shootong from roughly the same angle, so I would expect to see similar images from both groups. The claim that this was made by a Federal employee does not come near passing our "significant doubt" test.
As for "no notice", as a general rule the image itself would not have a watermarked notice. In order to keep it as no-notice, it must be proven that it was published without notice before March 2, 1989. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
