Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newspaper advertising in Allentown, Pennsylvania

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.

Files in Category:Newspaper advertising in Allentown, Pennsylvania

[edit]

It's extremely questionable that the newspapers these clippings come from aren't copyrighted. Plus some of the images are clearly based on prior characters, artwork, and photographs that likely would be regardless. So these images should be deleted as a way to err on the side of caution per COM:PCP.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The Morning Call did not renew copyrights, which puts issues in the public domain up to 1964. Advertisements are not covered by the publications copyright and would need to have their own properly formatted copyright symbol and the year, up until 1989. This should have been handled by a question at Village Pump instead of jumping into deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorio de Tenerife for another large nomination, based on a misunderstanding of international copyright law, that could have been handled with a question at Village Pump. --RAN (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm not really sure what you think I should have asked about on the Village pump with either this DR or the other one. It's not my job to figure out if the news paper renewed it's copyright or not and if that was the case then it should be stated somewhere easily accessible to people who want to verify it. All PD-US-pre1978 says is that the paper doesn't contain a copyright notice, which has nothing to do with if it was renewed or not and can't be verified from selective images. We don't usually just take the persons word on it from selective screenshots either. At least not from what I've seen. The same goes for the adds. If the add is based on an image from a copyrighted film then it seems pretty clear said add violates copyright and a good percent of these adds are based on prior works or would have otherwise had copyrights that are separate from the particular paper. So what exactly should I have asked on the village pump about? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I explained pretty while why I nominated this images for deletion in my first message and the one below this in response to Marchjuly. If there's a particular thing you disagree with about it, cool. Say what you think I'm wrong about. I'd be happy to retract this if there's any merit to it. I didn't nominate the images for deletion for deletion because of any miss-understanding of United States or intentional copyright law though. The reasons I nominated the images for deletion are actually pretty based on both. Your to disagree with that, but then it's not my job to ask a question about something that is already based in law in the guidelines just because YOU think it isn't or YOUR about something. Be my guest and start a Village Pump about either DR if there's something that feel needs to be discussed further, again though, that's my place to do for you. Even if it was though, at least in the case of the other DR the guidelines are pretty clear that there's probably no meaningful FOP in Spain and I'm going to ask the Village Pump for permission to follow the guidelines. Sorry. Be my guest start a conversation about it on the Village Pump if think the guideline needs changing though. I could really care less, but I'm not doing it for you. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As pointed out above, print advertisements were required to have their own individual copyright notice (i.e. a notice separate from that of host publication itself) under US copyright law prior to January 1, 1978; so, Adamant1, it would be helpful if you could some how mark those files which you think are advertisements so that these can be assessed separately. In most cases, my guess is that they were published without separate notices and can, therefore, be relicensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}. Even if, by chance, there's is a notice, the file could possibly be {{PD-US-not renewed}} if published prior to Janaury 1, 1963. The copyright status of anything with a notice published on or after Janaury 1,1963, is going to depend upon whether it was renewed. Anything else (e.g. articles and their accompanying photos) would depend whether the copyright for the publication itself was ever renewed, which again as pointed out above doesn't seem to be the case. In most of these cases, file licensing should be OK to convert to {{PD-US-not renewed}}. One possible problem could be the provenance of the photos used in such articles; if they were taken by the paper's staff, they would likely be works-for-hire and should be OK as "PD-US-not renewed"; however, if they came from wire services or other third-parties, then they might possibly still be protected, but sorting that out seems like quite a task. Perhaps it's OK to assume that anything related to a local story was taken one of the paper's staff photographers, but be a bit more cautious with photos related to national events. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the images are adds containing artwork or photographs that are either based on prior works like television shows or movies and the like, or would otherwise have copyrights that are separate from the specific newspaper. Like with this image that contains screenshots from a black and white film. The film doesn't magically become PD just because images from it are published in a local newspaper. And I'm not going to mark out the 99% of images that are along those lines just because of the 1% that aren't. As far as if the files could "possibly" be PD-US-not renewed, sure they possibly could be, but the files are labeled with a license that says they don't contain a copyright notice, which isn't valid for selectively cropped images of a work. Someone can't just cropped out something and then claim the overall work is free of copyright because their version that's based on a small part of it doesn't contain a copyright notice. And no I don't think it's realistic for us to just change the licenses on upwards of 30,0000 images to "PD-US-not renewed" after the fact just so the files are compatible with Commons. Especially since like I said, most of the images are based on prior works that are probably copyrighted separate from the newspaper. The uploader should have used the correct license to begin with and not uploaded images that probably aren't PD to begin with. It's impossible and unrealistic to sort through, research, and re-tag the few individual images that might be OK at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As already pointed out above, and then pointed out again by Marchjuly: "Advertisements are not covered by the publications copyright and would need to have their own properly formatted copyright symbol and the year up to 1989." to be eligible for a copyright. As you pointed out: File:1929 - Colonial Theater - 1 Dec MC - Allentown PA.jpg does have a properly formatted copyright symbol with the year. It will be in the public domain on January 1, 2025. We do not have a "few individual images that might be OK", we have one image you found that is still copyrighted. You also wrote: "The film doesn't magically become PD". You are correct the film does not enter PD, the derivative advertisement does. No one is making the claim that the film is now PD because of an advertisement, that is called the strawman argument. --RAN (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a strawman argument since at least IMO the add isn't unique enough to retain it's own copyright separate from the film. Just like with say stamp doesn't magically become copyrighted if it contains a couple of images that are otherwise PD. So there's no reason the reverse would be true where an add contain a couple of images of a copyrighted film would magically have it's own copyright separate from the film. Also, what about in cases where the adds are printed in multiple papers? I assume in those cases that the copyright status of each particular paper the add was published in wouldn't matter as much. So we would need evidence about if the add itself was renewed or not. And that doesn't even address the issue of the files having the wrong license. Or should we just re-tag upwards of 10,000 images as "PD-US-not renewed" even if it's questionable in a good percentage of instances? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I went through and removed some files that weren't obviously based on artwork or photographs that might have separate copyrights. Although my internet is having problems. So I'm sure there's some I missed and the licenses for files that are clearly not copyrighted still need to be fixed regardless. I disagree that the adds based on photographs or artwork from movies wouldn't be copyrighted since IMO the adds aren't unique enough on their own to retain a separate copyright from the film. Although it's possible the original films are PD which would means the adds also are, but that really needs to be worked out on an individual bases for the images to be kept. It's also worth mentioning that in a lot of cases the quality of the scans are to bad to tell if the adds contain copyright notices to begin with. We don't keep low quality scans under the assumption that they probably don't contain a copyright notice just because the text isn't readable enough to tell. As a side to that some of these images probably have OOS issues anyway. Although it's tangential to the potential copyright problems. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clindberg: If it is printed in a newspaper, it is not out of scope, we have several ongoing projects to upload ever page of every issue of newspapers that are in the public domain. Advertisements have been uploaded since the creation of Commons: See: Category:Advertisements in the United States. So far you provided actionable evidence on just a single image: File:1929 - Colonial Theater - 1 Dec MC - Allentown PA.jpg, the rest is just generalized fear, uncertainty and doubt. Even though "1929 - Colonial Theater - 1 Dec MC - Allentown PA.jpg" has a properly formatted copyright symbol, the copyright for the advertisement was never renewed. The film itself will enter the public domain on January 1, 1925; the advertisement lapsed into the public domain by lack of renewal. This came up previously with "album cover images" versus "album cover images used in Billboard magazine promotions". The lowres ad entered the public domain and we can upload it, but that doesn't mean we can upload the hires scan of the album cover. --RAN (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that pages of a newspaper are in scope, these aren't of newspaper pages though are they? So to quote you from an early comment, "that is called a strawman argument." Regardless of you doing exactly what you called me out for, I don't think individual images for every single minor newspaper advertisement for a 10% discount on coats that week at the local discount clothing store is in scope. As part of the page, sure, but not cropped from it and void of any context. Just like historical photographs are in scope, but if I were to crop an image of one at a 300% percent zoom so it's just the corner of a random building and then uploaded said image it would probably be deleted. There's a point where information stops being informative due to how mundane it is and I think the fact that coats at the local second hand store had a 2% discount in July of 1925 would cross it. Especially if there's a chance said image is copyrighted. Also, I reject your idea that this has anything to do with "just generalized fear, uncertainty and doubt." It's called the precautionary principle for a reason. Just claiming someone is trying to scare people isn't a valid justification to keep images that might be copyright violations. But apparently all you have is strawman. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the part where I say to see Category:Advertisements in the United States where we have been clipping advertisement since the beginning of Commons. Your personal interests may not coincide with the interests of other users, but that is no reason for deletion. If I nominated every image at Commons that I had no interest in, there would not be much left at Commons at all. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You actually didn't say that, but OK. I did a search for "newspaper clipping" before I started this DR and there was only a few results. Regardless, I never said "news clippings" aren't in scope. I said ones about mondain, non-notable subjects probably aren't in scope since they aren't educational by their nature. I'm sure you get the difference. No where did I say nominated these images for deletion just because I wasn't interested in them either. My personal interest in a particular image or subject has nothing to do with if it has educational value or not, obviously. You seem to use strawman as default though. And here I'm the one being accused of basing this on generalized fear and doubt. When your the acting like this whole is because I just find the files boring. And regardless of the fact that I've explained why I started this multiple times and none of the reasons having to do with disinterest in the subject. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Newspaper_advertising_in_Allentown,_Pennsylvania&oldid=820499882"