Delirium wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
What needs to be done here is to research exactly
who may be
correct. Many WWII photographs are likely to still be under
copyright (the life+75 rule has not gone into effect yet, or the 100
year rule... depending on what copyright laws you are using, and was
published after 1924 when prior copyright had entered into public
domain) and my gut feeling is that it is likely to be a copyright
violation.
A significant portion of WW2-era photographs were taken by U.S.
government personnel during the course of their official duties, and
are therefore in the public domain.
Perhaps so, but without some indication of how we know that Photograph
X was taken by US government personnel, we don't know that the
photograph is in the public domain. In which case, given my
understanding of what the Commons' policies were supposed to be, it's
not eligible for inclusion there. We need to *know* that it's public
domain because we have facts to support this, not because we're
engaging in wishful guesswork. Otherwise, it reminds me of those
people who mistakenly believe that every picture on a federal
government website is public domain.
A significant portion of WWII-era photographs were also taken by UPI and
AP photographers (including the "famous" Iwo Jima photo of the U.S.
Marines raising the U.S. flag).... and these are completely covered by
copyright, as are photos for magazines like Time and Newsweek and LIFE
(which sent several photographers into the front lines). Given a photo
of a WWII battle scene, it is unlikely to trace its copyright status
unless you know the exact archive it came from. Many commonly seen
WWII-era photos are from the Corbis archives, again where many people
feel they can copy to their heart's content (including images of Nazi
Germany) but are still covered under copyright. This makes them
ineligible for inclusion in Wikicommons, and depending on usage illegal
to use on Wikipedia as well (fair-use doesn't go that far).
--
Robert Scott Horning