File talk:SolwayfirthSpaceman.jpg

I do not believe there is a clear enough indication that this image is available under a public domain license. In a letter to the Daily Mail in 2002, the photographer James Templeton stated:

"Over the four decades the photo has been in the public domain, I have had many thousands of letters from all over the world with various ideas or possibilities - most of which make little sense to me." [1]

This does not explicitly state that he has released the photo under a PD license. Most likely it means that the photograph has simply been published and seen by the public for the last four decades. Without clear evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that James Templeton still holds the copyright to this photo. Using the photo under a claim of fair use is perfectly fine, however. Small-town hero (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I respectfully disagree, however, with your opinions. While neither of us have solid details on the copyright status, Templeton has stated that the image is in the public domain. This can, of course, be interpreted, but Wikipedia defines public domain material as being "available for anyone to use freely for any purpose." Llenden (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without explicit permission from the photographer, the image is not "available for anyone to use freely for any purpose" and hence not public domain. We should assume that an image is not public domain unless there is undisputable evidence to the contrary, and that isn't the case here. For what it's worth I enquired about this image over at Commons (here), and the reply I received concurred with this assessment. Small-town hero (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I'll enquire further at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Small-town hero (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed the discussion at Commons. I will assume that you, as a more experienced editor, are correct in this instance. However, we should appreciate the possibility that Templeton did indeed mean that the image is in the public domain, as defined by Wikipedia. Llenden (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should not default to such a possiblity though, and I would appreciate it if you did not edit war. As I said, I have asked for further input at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Small-town hero (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war. I inserted the new tag before reading your comment here. Once I did, I immediately reverted to your tag, citing our discussion. Please assume good faith. Llenden (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I still think you jumped the gun in reverting to a PD lisence when we were already discussing the issue here. Small-town hero (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as public domain as defined by Wikipedia. The image is either in the public domain or it is not. Clearly this image has not been specifically released into the public domain by the photographer even though the image has been extensively used but as an historic image it can be used under a fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly" nothing. While I mean no disrespect, that's simply your opinion. Templeton has referred to the image as being "in the public domain." Nobody has concrete facts on the matter. Llenden (talk) (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: the meaning of his comment is unclear and open to interpretation, therefore we default to the assumption that the image is copyrighted. Small-town hero (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We had come to an agreement on that already. Ww2censor claimed that the image is not in the public domain, however, which is an unsubstantiated assertion. Llenden (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed WP:PD? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was long finished. Llenden (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]