File talk:Bacall&Hawks.jpg

Not public domain

Copied from en:File talk:Bacall&Hawks.jpg

This is not a PD image. Rather, the linked-to page says:

Copyright Regents of the University of California, UCLA Library. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

--but please see the ref to expired copyrights: "Los Angeles Times: issues renewed from January 5, 1958 (v. 77); see registered works database; initially Sundays, with daily issues renewed apparently starting in 1962 " The long-defunct LA Daily News apparently never renewed any of their copyrights. So this image is, indeed, PD, as stated. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but... the UPenn link you cite states: "Artwork, photographs, dramas, music, and other types of works appearing in periodicals, as well as material that originally appeared elsewhere, may also have been registered separately, and are not represented here." So, separate from the newspaper's copyright, there may be (renewed) copyrights by the photographer or the photograph's distributor (e.g., the AP) or someone else. And the UCLA page on which the photograph appears clearly asserts copyright. Thus, the PD status of this photograph may be contested. --Jeremy Butler 12:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a further discussion:

      No daily newspaper *outside* New York renewed issues prior to the end
      of World War II, and only a few prior to 1950.  So there's a lot of
      newspaper content that's in the public domain and eligible for
      scanning and reuse.

While this isn't definitive, it's extremely likely that the photo in question is PD for nonrenewal. The UCLA archives copyright claims are boilerplate, and appear even on photos like this 1911 photo that is unquestionably PD. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're right and I'd love for images such as this to be public domain, but my doubts remain. And from that "further discussion" I see: "Note our caveats in the page above, though, including the ones about contributions to periodicals being separately renewable..." Unless you're sure the photo's copyright was originally owned by the newspaper, you can't be sure that it's now PD. Regards, Jeremy Butler 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the only way to be certain the copyright wasn't renewed would be to search all the renewals around that year, an impractical task (for me, anyway). But consider: UCLA has licensed the photo for free, non-commercial reuse. Wikipedia use is within the terms of that license. [Gets on hobbyhorse] It's a mystery to me why WP disallows free, noncommercial-licensed images (as "free"), but allows fair-use stuff....

So the consequences, if I'm wrong re PD, are slight [/hobbyhorse]. Anyone outside WP who wants to reuse the photo has now been alerted that there is some doubt about its copyright status. I'm comfortable leaving it at that. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)