Commons:Deletion requests/File:TrangBang.jpg
I was told that I had misinterpreted the meaning of no copyright notice, so this image probably has to go away. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#.7B.7BPD-US-no notice.7D.7D. I tried deleting {{NowCommons}} tags everywhere, but it seems that it was nevertheless deleted from the Indonesian, Vietnamese and Chinese Wikipedias. Do you know if they have any undeletion requests pages anywhere? They probably want their local copy back. Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete According to the 332nd page of Patrick Hagopian's The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials, and the Politics of Healing, Figure 66. Nine-Year-Old Kim Phuc Running Down Route 1 Near Trang Bang after a South Vietnamese Napalm Attack, June 8, 1972. Photo by Nick Ut. Copyright © AP Photo/Nick Ut. Takabeg (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The situation was made explicit for works published after 1978 in the 1976 Copyright Act, section 405: if the notice was only missing on "no more than a relatively small number of copies", or the notice was "omitted in violation of an express requirement in writing" that notices should have been present, then copyright was not lost. I would think that a relatively small number of newspapers forgetting an overall copyright notice (which you'd think would have been required by any AP distribution agreement) would not result in a loss of copyright. Granted, this photo is from before that law went into effect, but I think there were some court cases which did allow some exceptions along those lines under the 1909 law. The 1909 law did say: where the copyright proprietor has sought to comply with the provisions of this Act with respect to notice, the omission by accident or mistake of the prescribed notice from a particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright (section 20). This study by the Copyright Office in 1960 goes into a lot of detail on some of the early cases, and subsequent law revisions up to that point. While the lack of notice in the small newspapers would have meant the loss of copyright for all material authored by that newspaper (or first published there), I would not want to use that fact to assume copyright was lost for a photo like this, which undoubtedly had many copyright notices in other papers distributed at the same time, at least without some court decision backing it up (and that study noted that courts had become more forgiving of mistakes with copyright notices over time). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete it was published with sufficient notice, per CL. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
