User talk:Light show/photos

Mort Sahl photo

This agency publicity photo of Mort Sahl would be PD. It was likely taken in the early 1960s. The proper tag would be Template:PD-Pre1978. Agency publicity stills are never copyrighted. See also film still. If the reverse side is needed, I can have the seller describe or scan it.

If someone can please review it and if it's OK I can then upload it. --Light show (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You say it was 'likely' taken in the early 1960's, but is there any actual evidence for that other than the category on eBay? We can't really just 'guess' based on how old we think he looks, and the claim that such photos were 'never copyrighted' is far too broad. It's a generic statement, and there have certainly been exceptions, so also seeing the reverse (and also something better about the date) would be much better. The argument you make for why something is okay needs to be specific. Revent (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Revent, a similar photo shows the date as being no later than 1963 and shows the reverse. --Light show (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Revent, should I assume that once I've posted a link to the Village pump copyright page, and editors have reviewed it without comment, that tacit approval is implied? This page has been viewed by those editors about 100 times so far. Of course, even after I upload a photo, if someone later disputes or questions some of the description facts on its talk page, I would try to clear up the issue. I think that resolving questions on a talk page first is less disruptive than just tagging something for deletion. --Light show (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I replied on your main talk page. As far as this photo, the other one (which actually looks like a different publication of the same photograph to me) is evidence that it's pre-1963, but I still don't feel entirely comfortable saying that this is okay without seeing both sides of the form in which it was originally published. I'm not 'emphatic' about it, but I don't think you should upload it without some other people agreeing that it's 'good enough' evidence. Revent (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Omar Sharif & Barbra Streisand press photo

Can someone review this is 1973 press photo showing front and reverse side. I also ran a copyright search for any photos and came up with nothing relevant to this vintage publicity photo. The license would be Template:PD-Pre1978, with a description box similar to this one. Thanks in advance for anyone able to review this. --Light show (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately (and this a good illustration of why you need to be very careful about these) the version of this photo being sold on ebay has a Columbia Pictures Corporation copyright notice cropped from the bottom left corner. It's being currently marketed by Shutterstock (see link here), which I actually found out after seeing a copy elsewhere with their watermark. Revent (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are only photo ids. A valid copyright needs the name of the owner, unencrypted, and the date. See this photo from the same film for an example of a valid notice. And also notice the photo id on the bottom right of the image. --Light show (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect, strongly, that this is the kind of argument that got you into trouble before. We are not lawyers, and trying to make arguments about if a copyright notice was 'defective' and thus invalid doesn't work.... it's against the idea of the PRP. The other shot you linked actually makes the point that this is not ok... you can see the inscription even more clearly, and tell that such an inscription includes the 'C in a circle'. That another photo, from the same film, with the same marking, was itself published with a full and complete copyright notice makes it highly likely that this one was as well... at least, likely enough that it can't be on Commons. If a work displays a copyright symbol, or the word 'copyright', per the PRP we must assume it was legitimately filed. Don't upload it.

If you really want to get into arguing about the 'validity' of the notice itself, I'd point out that 'an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of owner' is perfectly acceptable..... that's a quote straight from Circular 3. As far as the year, the courts have traditionally been very lenient about that unless the work was actually postdated, and since a copyright holder had a five year period to correct an such an error in a notice, which could be done merely by publishing more copies with the correct notice, that's not going to hold any water. It's all irrelevant, anyhow, since you yourself demonstrated that the form in which photos from the film were actually published included both a similar marking (with an indication that it was copyrighted, in the form of a circled c and an abbreviation of the owner's name) and a full and complete copyright notice. The whole idea of having such an argument does not work on Commons, however, because of the precautionary principle. "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined the file is in the public domain" (COM:EVID). Revent (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ruth Roman press photo

Can someone review this original press photo? It shows the front and reverse with no copyright and is dated 1958. --Light show (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Just from a quick glance, that's should be 1956, not 1958 (it was promoting a 1956 movie). Be more careful, please. As far as it's being copyrighted, there indeed are no copyright marks visible, and a check of the obvious suspects (Getty, Shutterstock, etc) doesn't show it as claimed to be under copyright by any of them. Tineye doesn't give any matches either, so this is probably okay, but I'd like to see evidence that some people who are more experienced with the specific 'subject matter' of this type of publicity photos are also looking before you actually upload things. Revent (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hedy Lamarr publicity photo

Can someone please review this PD publicity still of Hedy Lamarr and comment if it seems OK? It's dated and shows the front and back with no copyright notice. It would be a good addition to her article. --Light show (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded after discussion. --Light show (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Press photos in possession

What is the best way to get approval for original press photos in my possession? I have some old ones I forgot about, and I would naturally upload the front and back. The only thing missing would be a link to ebay as it would have been expired. @ link. --Light show (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)