Template talk:PD-CQ Roll Call
Should this be used for more recent images?
[edit] | An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. |
Previously raised as Commons:Village_pump/Copyright in June 2023 by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) and in December 2023 by me, but neither had any discussions around it before being archived.
The template and relevant sites state that it is used for the images from CQ and Roll Call that are in the collection at the Library of Congress, which seems to stop at 2000 (for the Roll Call portion) and at 2010 (for the CQ portion). As stated by Red-tailed hawk, "This appears valid for all photographs specifically held in that collection, but CQ Roll Call was sold to FiscalNote in 2018, so I can't imagine that these permissions were forward-looking or otherwise granted in perpetuity for all works created by CQ Roll Call photographers."
Should this template be used for more recent images from these photographers not part of the collection at the Library of Congress?
Some users who have uploaded recent images from CQ Roll Call: Bremps, TJMSmith, AlaskaGal, and Born Isopod. reppoptalk 00:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical that the license is valid for new works created by CQ Roll Call. Might be worth shooting the company an email to ask for clarification, but for now I think we have to be conservative in our application of the template in line with COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Upon second thought, we should confirm with company reps whether the new work is also in the public domain. Bremps... 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Has anyone emailed them yet for clarification? reppoptalk 23:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Upon second thought, we should confirm with company reps whether the new work is also in the public domain. Bremps... 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Red-tailed hawk, I can't imagine that the Economist Group negotiated a constraint on what copyright policy FiscalNote could use for the photographs created by their photographers after the acquisition. On the other hand, a photograph created by a CQ Roll Call photographer listed in the LoC's Rights and Restrictions Information page taken before the gift to the LoC might plausibly be eligible for this template if it once appeared in the database mentioned at that link, even if the LoC has not yet placed it online (sometimes the LoC takes quite awhile to process a large collection). —RP88 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- To extend this question further, is this template being justifiably used in recently taken photos such as File:Hunter Biden and Abbe Lowell in 2023.jpg , whose photographer's name actually is on that list? Why would a gift of some works make that photographer's future works public domain?--Noren (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)