The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
orphaned image, absent uploader, tagged as GFDL-presumed, should be fairly easy to get a cleanly licensed image of a cat should it be needed
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
13:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
This image is only used on an article's talk page. According to the talk page, the image was confusing and as such was removed in 2005 without apparent reuse since. The image is tagged as GFDL-presumed. Should it be needed in the future, a "less confusing" and cleanly licensed graphic can be re-created.
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
13:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: - Delete - per Jordan GFDLpresumed images cannot be moved to commons and the image (+ those below) are orphaned -
Peripitus(Talk)04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)reply
They don't have to be factual, but they do need to be free. This image is only *presumed* to be free -- it should not be copied to Commons.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This is currently used only in the article
William Obanhein, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether Obanhein is in fact the person represented in it (he is, I gather, in a different Rockwell painting). I also have doubts about using the jigsaw puzzle to stand in for the painting--thus involving two copyrights instead of one--but whether this is really Obie is the main question.
Chick Bowen18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - The article on the subject already contains an image
Image:SimonG.JPG and the article is not long enough to require more then one. Both images are similar in nature and were likely taken at the same time.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
21:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Improper use of a non-free image. We cannot use a magazine cover except when the cover itself is the subject of discussion, not as a representative of type of genre. However, given that this was published in the 1930s there's a good chance that the copyright may have expired by now (it would have had to have been renewed). howcheng {
chat}20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, the Stanford copyright database is for books only. The Copyright Office database shows 26 renewals for stories from Planet Stories
[2] but none for the magazine as a whole or the cover art. So there was no renewal between 1978 and 2005. See
[3] for scans, year by year, of copyright renewals from 1950 to 1977. I've checked 1950 to 1955, and Planet Stories doesn't appear. More later. --
John Nagle (
talk)
17:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Checked 1956-1960; no "Planet Stories". I'm seeing renewals for things like "Ranch Romances" and "Railroad Stories", so this is the right place to look for renewals of the pulps. More later. --
John Nagle (
talk)
18:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Checked 1961-1970; no "Planet Stories". "Astounding", (the predecessor of Analog) was renewed regularly. Many forgotten pulps, like "Pioneer Picture Stories" were renewed, and the big players, like the New York Times, are in there every year. This is a pain. More later. --
John Nagle (
talk)
18:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Checked 1971-1978; no "Planet Stories". After 1978, there's a database, and that's been already checked. So there was no copyright renewal on this publication between 1950 and 2005. Which, I think, puts it in the public domain. --
John Nagle (
talk)
18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: - Delete - it is a non-free image for which we have no definative copyright owner (I can't tell whether or not newsweek owns it) and no fair-use rationale. -
Peripitus(Talk)04:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)reply
If it's a Copyright violation, it is a copyright violation from a Newsweek magazine photo from Sept 29 1969. The blog host in question is most likely Arlo Guthrie's site, which is relevant here because Arlo Guthrie is a large part of why this image is notable. Lastly, this is one of 2 images Google can find for the subject of the photo (and the article it is attached to).
207.58.192.150 (
talk)
18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.