Template talk:PD-Van Vechten

This template was nominated for deletion but kept. See the deletion debate at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Van Vechten

This template is meant for use on photos from Carl Van Vechten Photographs Collection at the US Library of Congress, which are in the public domain.

The syntax is {{PD-Van Vechten|description|reproduction number}}. Ary29 13:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PD?

I strongly doubt these images are in the public domain. Also, they are not under a free license; we can't host pictures that can't be modified (cropping or coloring). --Fb78 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

They are in the public domain, per the Library of Congress' assessment. There is no legally binding restriction on their use; Van Vechten's estate has asked that the images not be distorted, but this is not a legal restriction there because they no longer control the rights to the images. Andrew Levine 07:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think these images are not compatible with commons since they have a no derivatives clause. --Cruccone 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not PD, nor a free license

If the images are restricted but the artists foundation to "artist hast to be contributed, no cropping, no colorisation", the license is CC-nd, which is not a free license applicable for WP. the artist died 1964, so {PD-old} will come into affect 2034. Sorry, but I request a deletion of all Images in this category! --80.133.220.209 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Fb78 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to request, demand or enforce deletion of the template. / Fred Chess 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove "preserve the integrity" clause

I suggest this be removed, as the claims of the current executor of the Van Vechten estate appear to be patently false. At most we should say something along the lines of, "disputed by X, but the LOC maintains they are PD".--Pharos 15:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

What's the reason of inserting Template:Information in this template? Also, it seems to be impossible to use the date field. --Jaqen (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)