User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Reported by VernoWhitney (talk)
• Uploaded images appear to have a variety of issues, in particular I've noticed ((PD-US-not renewed)) for files such as New York Times articles with no evidence to support the presumption. See at least File:Schneider-Eddie NYT 1930ff.gif, File:Schneider Eddie 1937 02.jpg, File:Schneider-EddieAugust 70761022 c740c4f306 o.jpg, File:HubbardBell.gif, and File:Norton-RichardArthur 1958 1966b.jpg.

This is only regarding his images files, not text, and in case you haven't noticed recently, there has been some drama unfolding recently and many of his files are up for FfD or speedy deletion here and on commons (I believe all of his local files were put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 24#File:1870 census_Turpin.gif), but I feel that a calmer and more reasoned analysis of just the copyright issues is warranted (and will hopefully be possible since so few people like digging into copyright issues). VernoWhitney (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This request has merit but is very badly-timed given recent events. Suggest deferring for a couple of weeks. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least File:Norton-RichardArthur 1958 1966b.jpg should be rejected out of hand. Its marked public domain and to assume bad faith that a user isnt able to release a 40+ year old school photo is just not acceptable, especially in the wider context of harrassment by socks and others. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to keep this open? I would have simply deleted it without further ado, in light of the events of the past few days (apparently legitimate editors and multiple sockpuppets poring through a single editor's contributions to repeatedly nominate them for deletion), but I see there's already been some edit warring over that. What possible good can come out of subjecting this editor to yet more process at this point? If you want a rational, principled discussion of their copyright-related editing approach, this is not a good time for that. Best to give it at least a few days' pause, and before launching any burdensome new process, get some direction from the community or recommendations from cool headed experienced administrators on how best to resolve this without inflaming it. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone comes up with a really good reason to do otherwise, I think this request should just be removed. The images that really are copyright violations have already been nominated and there is nothing to do here. --B (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know that all of them have been nominated? I was under the impression that at least File:Schneider-EddieAugust 70761022 c740c4f306 o.jpg was still listed as a candidate to be transferred to commons based on the assertion that copyright was not renewed. As I find it hard to believe that the NYT would allow copyright to lapse without at least some searches performed, I feel that further inquiry (now or later) is desirable. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved on that particular image. The point is that Richard's images are getting plenty of scrutiny without this extra level of process creep. --B (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, I was just under the impression that it would be easier to work from a single list where the copyright standing of the images could be recorded (ignoring the quality/orphan/whatever else gets dragged out at FfD) rather than trying to track each image's nominations individually and pointing out where there are or could be copyright issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've yet to see a single file thats a credible copyright violation. Whats the point in asking for evidence that pre WWII files arent PS-US-not renewed? No one can prove a negative, and looking at the files they're blatantly scanned images of archived material. RAN should be thanked for public spiritedly uploading the files, not put under furhter scrutiny. All this seems to be is a mass attack where some files are getting deleted cos there not enough folk to defend them all. To add insult to injury, with his user page pic when an FxD was denied the attack pack just tries another forum. If you had examples showing there is good reason to doubt RANs sincerity or competence to release these files as public domain that would be different. But you this trivia seems to be the best you have so this in light of other events ,which youre clearly well aware of, this is harassment and you should withdraw this request. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct - copyright renewals are available from http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/, among other places. You can easily look through the list at about 25-30 years after the original copyright date to see if the periodical in question is listed. In particular, all New York Times copyrights were renewed, guaranteed, 100% chance, so for the scanned articles from the NYT that are on or after January 1, 1923, there should be no question. --B (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you could likely prove this negative for all intents and purposes by paying a significant chunk of money for a formal search by the Copyright Office, there could also be evidence provided (i.e., searches for copyright renewals from multiple sources (B's link above points to a handful of them), as none of them are guaranteed 100% accurate) which would support a presumption of public domain. As WP:C states "You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain", I am not comfortable with withdrawing the request. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website claims that these listings are exhaustive for what they cover. In other words, for example, they don't have music done yet, but for what is done, it's complete. For the case of periodicals (which I think most of the images in question are), we should be able to get a definitive answer one way or the other. If a periodical isn't listed, then we can say authoritatively that no record exists of its renewal. You're never going to prove an absolute negative - even the Library of Congress in their collections uses the language "no known restrictions to publication exist" because they are saying "we looked and can't find a renewal, but that doesn't mean something was out there". For instance, suppose that the copyright was renewed, but then time travelers from the 24th century secretly invaded the copyright office and stole the documentation. I'm not claiming that research has been done - I think it's pretty clear that the user just slapped the tag on everything without looking - I'm just claiming that it is possible to know one way or the other. --B (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note some rationale from an admin that at least one of the images I mentioned is presumably PD here. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: it has now been over a month. There was some concern when this was raised that the timing was poor and some expressed an opinion that the contributor was under enough scrutiny that it would be unnecessary. Are there still images of concern that would merit evaluation? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that at least File:Schneider-Eddie NYT 1930ff.gif has since been moved to commons and is almost certainly not PD since it's New York Times from 1930, so as sad as it makes me to say this (especially given the sheer quantity of images he's uploaded), I still feel that a review may be necessary. There's a similar review going on at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Family history. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]