הסיבה שניתנה היא:Continuing from Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Bettmann_Archive_photos. All photos nominated here are post-1963 US images, ranging from 1964 to the 1980s. These photos claim to be in the public domain due to 'lack of notice' using the {{PD-US-no notice}} template. However, there is little to no proof of that. My main concern is not that we are violating the copyright of a stock site, but that there is not enough proof these images actually meet the PD no-notice tag criteria. I am not denying they were published, rather the 'no notice' claims are hard to prove and assumptions are being made here. The first problem is that we cannot see the entire print, sheet or strip to verify the lack of notice claims. The copyright notice would not be on the photo like a watermark; it would be elsewhere. Getty only shows the high-resolution scan of the front. An example of an image that shows no notice, this UPI photo: File:Senator Ross Bass "On the Job!" (1965 UPI press photo).jpg, can be seen on the rear. Most of these photographs from the Bettmann Archive could very well be public domain, but without seeing the whole photo or its backside where a notice might be, its copyright status is uncertain. Assuming it's public domain without further verification is risky. The second problem is that almost all photos are credited to an 'unknown author.' How are we supposed to know who took the photo? Otto Bettmann was the collector of these photos, not the creator or copyright holder, and neither is Getty. Many photos come from various sources and creators, and I did see some that are credited to UPI, a press agency, so perhaps other copies exist elsewhere. This is also problematic for photos from 1978 and later, as we cannot really search for registrations. For pre-1964 photos, we can search for renewals, so it is not the same concern as with the 1964-1989 photos. Essentially, any and all photos could be Public Domain, but there is a serious lack of evidence to back up those claims. I am making this mass DR as I have doubts on the freedom of these files, but also for a consensus. What do we do with all these photos? There are millions more in the archive that could be useful to the Commons. Would love to hear others opinions on this.
{{subst:delete2|image=Files found with Bettmann|reason=Continuing from Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Bettmann_Archive_photos. All photos nominated here are post-1963 US images, ranging from 1964 to the 1980s. These photos claim to be in the public domain due to 'lack of notice' using the {{PD-US-no notice}} template. However, there is little to no proof of that. My main concern is not that we are violating the copyright of a stock site, but that there is not enough proof these images actually meet the PD no-notice tag criteria. I am not denying they were published, rather the 'no notice' claims are hard to prove and assumptions are being made here. The first problem is that we cannot see the entire print, sheet or strip to verify the lack of notice claims. The copyright notice would not be on the photo like a watermark; it would be elsewhere. Getty only shows the high-resolution scan of the front. An example of an image that shows no notice, this UPI photo: File:Senator Ross Bass "On the Job!" (1965 UPI press photo).jpg, can be seen on the rear. Most of these photographs from the Bettmann Archive could very well be public domain, but without seeing the whole photo or its backside where a notice might be, its copyright status is uncertain. Assuming it's public domain without further verification is risky. The second problem is that almost all photos are credited to an 'unknown author.' How are we supposed to know who took the photo? Otto Bettmann was the collector of these photos, not the creator or copyright holder, and neither is Getty. Many photos come from various sources and creators, and I did see some that are credited to UPI, a press agency, so perhaps other copies exist elsewhere. This is also problematic for photos from 1978 and later, as we cannot really search for registrations. For pre-1964 photos, we can search for renewals, so it is not the same concern as with the 1964-1989 photos. Essentially, any and all photos could be Public Domain, but there is a serious lack of evidence to back up those claims. I am making this mass DR as I have doubts on the freedom of these files, but also for a consensus. What do we do with all these photos? There are millions more in the archive that could be useful to the Commons. Would love to hear others opinions on this. --~~~~}}
(Original Caption) Interior Secretary Walter Hickel poses for photographers at the White House, 1/24, after he was sworn in to office by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
No copyright notice, Bettmann nor Getty own the image, it was dedicated for historical archiving. Also see w:Talk:Mike Mansfield
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg?uselang=he){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}