Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Bettmann

Files found with Special:Search/Bettmann Archive photographs 1964-1989

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.

PascalHD (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaving the discussion that has been used in a previous deletion request pertaining to the archive and the license: w:Talk:Mike_Mansfield#Picture. reppop^talk 22:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undoubtly some of these photographs are probably PD. Its always questionable when a website mass posts, or a user mass uploads, files and expects other people to do the footwork of finding out what the copyright of said images is. That's not our job and it should be done BEFORE they are uploaded and made clear in the images description beyond just the boiler plate liecense. Especially since some of these images clearly looked cropped and there's no images of their back sides. So how are we even suppose to figure out if they have a copyright on them to begin with? We aren't. Therefore we must delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly this argument is retarded. Erm, there might be a posible violation even though there is no evidence. There is no evidence it's copyrighted, let's not waste our time on hypotheticals and make this site worse. So let's Keep. KlaudeMan (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PascalHD It's been over two weeks and it's 4-2 in favor of keep so I think we should close now. KlaudeMan (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this is something we should consult legal about in absence of a consensus to delete the images. As I don't think a local consensus from 4 people to keep images can or should override the wider policy (if not mandate) that we only host images that won't potentially lead to re-users getting sued. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue is that the argument is pure hypothetical around the possibility of the copyright being secretly in grandmas coffee can. There is no evidence to suggest copyright, so all this is doing is ruining Wikipedia just so for a hypothetical. KlaudeMan (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KlaudeMan I have provided my reasoning for my concerns; it is up to you to read it. I understand and agree that these images are valuable to the site. Given the large number of images from the collection, and valid concerns, I am seeking a community consensus to establish a precedent on how these images should be handled. I believe that would be the best approach before mass uploading the hundreds of thousands of images off Getty. As much as I dislike it, copyright needs to be taken seriously, not shrugged off. PascalHD (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed it, but from what I remember the nominator laid their reason's for the DR pretty well and none of them had to do with someone's grandma or a coffee can. Regardless, 99% of this has never been tested in court. So it's all hypothetical to some degree. That's not a valid excuse to keep any given set of images though. Nor do I think we should keep images simply because people like you can't be bothered to address or acknowledge the actual reasons for the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coffee can thing was just a joke, there is no evidence to verify it to be in the copyright so we can assume it to be in public domain. The only evidence of posible copyright would be on paper hidden away in a library, or well grandmas coffee can. KlaudeMan (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think its the opposite though. If someone uploads an image where we don't the date of publication, author, country of origin or if it was even published to begin with then we usually (if not always) delete it. There has to at least the basics and they clearly don't exist in this case. Heck, we don't even know what country a lot of these photographs were taken in. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest solution might be attempt to track down a physical copy of one of these images, as most likely the copyright of that image would be the same as those of all in the betteman archive. KlaudeMan (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine this would work best for the UPI photos part of the collection. Some of the photos on Getty show the text on front, like this one, but not the back. However, the example photo I linked above for Ross Bass shows what a typical UPI photo looked like including the back. Checking ebay and reverse searches could find other copies. Library of Congress also mentions that UPI 'had few photos registered', some might have carried notices. UPI photos would likely be upload-able with some due diligence. With that being said, not all photos in the Bettman collection are from UPI. This logic would not necessarily apply to the other photos. Majority of the photos nominated for deletion make no mention of UPI to begin with. PascalHD (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 That sounds like a good idea. Wouldn't hurt to get further opinions on this. PascalHD (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will quote an email from Getty that someone sent in relation to a past discussion on this topic

"Thanks for contacting us about an image that may be in the public domain. Public domain works can be used by anyone for any purpose without permission from the creator or copyright holder. This is distinct from the rights of any people or property depicted in the image. Where these rights exist, they will not automatically expire because the copyright for the image is in the public domain. Public domain content can be licensed by any image provider and there are benefits to doing so.

The advantage of licensing public domain content from Getty Images is that you gain legal protection under terms of our license, giving you an indemnity against any third party asserting rights to the copyright in the image. If you can find this image in the public domain and are comfortable with the quality of the image you find, and using it without a license, you can make the judgement call to do so. We can only make the version of this image on our website available by purchasing a license. Whenever using intellectual property of any kind we encourage you to consult with your legal team to ensure you're completely comfortable with doing so."

The copyright holders are unknown and Bettmann does not own the copyright to the images- meaning that I feel it is within reason to take a risk and keep the images. In a worst case scenario, the photographer would identify themselves and the image would then be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or conversely the photographer would sue any re-users. Which is exactly why Getty Images is clearly covering their own asses from law suites by re-users in that message. Regardless, there's nothing about it that is compatible with Commons. Especially that last bit, "the copyright holders are unknown and Bettmann does not own the copyright to the images." I don't even get how Getty Images can legally purchase a license from Bettmann for the images that case. Let alone re-release them for public use. And we're like 5 people down the line in that. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Microplastic Consumer The reply does not explicitly state that the Bettmann photos are confirmed public domain. Rather, it is a general acknowledgement that some photos might be in the public domain, leaving it up to self research. It may be a risk Getty is willing to and can afford to take, sure. However, the rules and policies of the Commons don't really allow for ambigious photos to be hosted, per COM:PRP. PascalHD (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have always accepted Getty's due diligence when they claim a copyright is active, or something is public domain. Up until 1989 you still had to register for a copyright. I looked at random 6 images and could not find any copyright registration for any image of person named under multiple permutations of their name. I can find copyrighted images of Ronald Reagan and Edward Koch, but the descriptions do not fit the image we host. --RAN (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of the photos in the archive are uncredited and belong to 'Unknown' authors, how can we truly look for registrations? Otto Bettmann was not the creator or copyright holder of these works - he just collected them. Even in cases we do know the author such as UPI in a few instances, Getty does not show us the rest of the photo, so we cannot confirm if a notice is present or not with certainty the same way we can with ebay listings. PascalHD (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You look for the subject named in the image in the registration and renewal database. You have to copyright each image and describe it, that is why the Associated Press and the United Press and other agencies did not bother with the expense. They created thousands of images a day. In the category for each news service you can read what the Library of Congress wrote about the absence of copyrights. Getty has been vigilant in having a bot crawl through Commons, issuing takedown notices with us when they find a copyrighted image. Newspapers like the New York Times use the Getty version even when we host a free version. Sometimes it is just easier to use their services as a package deal. --RAN (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree here. You can take down images post 1989 and maybe even 1978, but taking down images before 1978 makes no logical sense when:

A. Images were not automatically copyrighted, and

B. Images before 1978 from the archive have no actual copyright filings or notice.

So, logically, unless these images on Bettman have a copyright notice, it makes sense to keep them. River10000 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main concern is that there may be a copyright, we cannot easily confirm. Like I mentioned, many photos are uncredited 'Unknown' authors. We cannot find a registration if we do not the creator. Also many photos were distributed as press photos, we cannot confirm if they had notices when distributed to the media or not because Getty only shows us a HD scan from the source. United Press International photos are in this collection and could be copyrighted. Getty has no obligation to disclose what photos are PD because they stand to profit off the works. They however have stated if you can prove it is PD elsewhere, then its fair game. PascalHD (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Press International and Associated Press did not register copyrights, they handled thousands of images a day, the cost would have been onerous. --RAN (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the press photos within the collection are probably fine to keep. I'll strike thru the photos which are credited to UPI. However, not all photos in the Bettmann collection are 'press' photos, though. Majority of photos I nominated (portraits of American politicians) make no mention of any author. Are we sure those ones are 'press' photos too? PascalHD (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can see, there is no explicit statement anywhere that the images in question are in the public domain. To the contrary, we know that some of them are press photos (such as those from UPI), which were generally intended for publication in news outlets, frequently with copyright statements. I am not even sure whether individual images, handed out to client publishers with an explicit restriction on reuse and potentially with additional contractual terms to affix copyright notice when (re-)publishing them, would suffice to void the copyright. After all, that would be restricted circulation, and individual isolated copies without copyright notice were not enough to lose copyright. In many of the cases under discussion here, we do not even have evidence of those individual copies. Felix QW (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlaskaGal: to make him aware of this. I have no strong opinion due to lack of expertise (have only cropped existing uploads by others). We are tied at 2 Keeps and 2 Deletes consensus-wise. SuperWIKI (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but I am very divided. When I first made the template that everyone uses to justify Bettmann images nowadays, I used to check the Copyright Office before I downloaded and published it to the Commons. I fully understand deleting them if we don't believe people are doing the same. Sorry for poor responses from now on; my heart problems are getting worse but apparently so is my bipolar so I won't be very active on Wikipedia anymore in general. As I type this I just got out of the hospital for 207/86 blood pressure hypertensive crisis. ~ AlaskaGal (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you check with the Copyright Office? We could use that process. SuperWIKI (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlaskaGal I hope you are well. I have always appreciated your good works. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Hope you are well too. AlaskaGal (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be blunt. I don't even exactly remember. It was shared to me in a reply at some point and I used to just click that and slap in key words from the item I'm looking for. It was a vintage looking website, didn't look new. AlaskaGal (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not actively pushing for it, but if anyone is active in looking at Wikipedia articles with these disputed images, it would be appropriate to replace them with free Commons images if and when they are reviewed. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could be an issue as for certain articles (See: Matilde Zimmermann and Andrew Pulley) as the Bettmann images are the only ones in the Public Domain. I've done some work on the images I've personally uploaded and haven't found any indications of Copyright or anywhere else the images were posted online. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason the ones that are being used can't just be re-uploaded to Wikipedia as fair use? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects are still alive and therefore cannot have free use images Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least a couple of them like Omar Bradley have been dead for a while now. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of these are only licensed as "PD-US-No-Notice" or whatever when they weren't even taken in the United States to begin with. So we'd still need a valid license for the country of origin to keep them regardless of they had a copyright notice to begin with or not. As that applies in the United States. Unfortunately fixing that is made much harder by the fact that we don't know who the original photographers were in most (if not all) cases. Let alone the dates of publication if any. So there's really no way to know if the normal copyright term for the country of origin has passed or not. In other words, there's absolutely no way these images can legally be hosted on Commons with how they are currently and there doesn't seem to be a fix for that since we are missing the details we need to add proper licenses. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I completely agree with @River10000, the image i uploaded was created before 1970, in fact verifiably at July 8, 1969, so trying to forward a deletion of an unregistered image in the copyright office, makes it automatically public domain in the US since no copyright traces are found of. This is really complicated but at the end of the day i don't think any actual 'violations' have occurred here. CtasACT (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), @CtasACT, and @River10000. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Bettmann

Files found with Special:Search/Bettmann Archive photographs 1964-1989

Navigation menu

Search