The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Keep, as sufficient evidence exists (per Baseball Bugs) that the image in question was published prior to the cutoff date, satisfying the requirements of Public Domain. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rogers Hornsby.jpg[edit]

Image:Rogers Hornsby.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ELutske (notify | contribs).

• There is no evidence that this image is in the public domain. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a chance to research after I get home from my road trip. It looks to be early in his career, which almost certainly puts it before 1923. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does look like that, but it's difficult to discern when this was taken exactly. Hornsby played for the Cardinals (at least, I think that's a Cardinals uniform he's wearing) from 1915 to 1926. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, a St.Louis road uniform. I would need to check my copy of the Okkonen book on uniforms, to see if I can determine the year, but I don't have it available right now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had thought the Hall had a database, and they do. If this link [1] works, you'll see that it dates from either 1920 or 1921. As to the publication date question, I couldn't say. Yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to provide a rationale for your position? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The criterion for PD-US is publication before 1.1.1923. The photo may indeed have been created before that date, but there is currently no support or evidence of publication. Being published and existing are entirely different notions. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader has been inactive since 2006, so he's unlikely to respond to the question of where he got it from, hence the questions you pose are unavailable just now. Since it's been there for some years, a couple more weeks won't matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just how am I supposed to determine when it was first published in any case? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writing on it looks like it was published at the time as a card or something, not in a latter collection of photos in a book. It's a publicity photo, so it would have been published quickly, not even a year later.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it's a tight question, but I think that there's strong evidence that it is in fact in the public domain. We're pretty sure that it dates to 1920 or 1921, and I seriously doubt that it was published much after the date it was taken; you don't take photos like that to store them away, and if some do show up in a book or later publication, it's without the writing on the picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image could have been taken for the purpose of being posted in the stadium - a action which would not be considered publication. Likely intended use of the image is speculative and not reasonable grounds for determining PD. Wikipedia should not be representing images as PD unless they have been verified as such. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment in itself engages in speculation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not using speculation to support a PD claim. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case, no free equivalent is possible, so the picture is still, at worst, a valid Fair Use photo, so calling for it to be deleted is silly. FYI, it is definitely from 1920 or 1921. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As another editor points out, the imprinting on the card dates its likely publication to the time it was taken. That's not speculation, it's knowledge of how these things were done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Speculation: "dates its likely publication". There is no date on the image. If this is so obviously PD, provide a reliable source. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This site has a bunch of vintage baseball cards, of which this is one. While you're sitting there drooling over the chance to delete something, I'm trying to research this item. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Research this first. It's a good read. You might also care to pursue WP:SPS and WP:RS; you're apparently not acquainted? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I know a deletionist when I see one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • In any case, as I say, a Fair Use case could easily be made. There is no justification for deleting it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - pretty good internal evidence that this is a baseball card from 1920 or 1921. More interested in the sentence "The image could have been taken for the purpose of being posted in the stadium - a action which would not be considered publication." I guess I'm not up on the technicalities of "Published" versus "printed and shown," could you point me to a definitive source? Smallbones (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked Publication#Legal_definition, and it seems that publication means in this context, selling or giving away copies, combined with some sort of distribution system. As I understand the objection, it is possible that somebody just displayed one or several copies, e.g. at the ball park, without an exchange of ownership. Possible, but I've never seen such a thing. Another possibility might be somebody just made it for themselves and never showed it to anybody until 2006, when it ended up here. How miniscule does the possibility have to be before we can disregard it? To me it obviously looks like a 1920 or 1921 baseball card, in which case it was sold or given away using a distribution system in 1920 or 1921 - ergo out-of-copyright. Smallbones (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a site that's selling old baseball cards, and saying this one is from 1921. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another site selling that card. It was issued by the National Caramel company. [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at worst, this would qualify as a fair-use image. There is no reason to delete it. If more time is needed to research the background, change the license and remove the image from the pages where fair use isn't justified (I haven't investigated, but I'm guessing it would only be applicable for use in the Rogers Hornsby article). Surely there's a better place to request the investigation of a picture's license than needlessly trying to delete an image. Matt Deres (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The image lacked significance for either article that it was linked to. Readers can click on the link to Tony Soprano and see an image of the character. -Nv8200p talk 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ep01 tony.jpg[edit]

Image:Ep01 tony.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sfufan2005 (notify | contribs).

• No sufficient fair use justification; fails WP:CSDWP:NFCC #8; image shows a generic headshot of one of the characters, not characteristic even of an individual episode; there is no analytical/critical commentary in the text that the image serves to support (in one of its uses, not even a caption saying what character it is). Purely decorative. This image accidentally came up in a discussion at DRV the other day, where there was a consensus it constituted "a prime example of an inappropriate non-free image". Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, CSD #8? Could you clarify what you're talking about? Do you mean WP:NFCC#8? The one that's currently has a box saying "The wording of criterion 8, Significance, in this policy or guideline is disputed and under discussion. Please see the relevant discussion on the policy talk page and the dedicated criterion debate page for further information." and linked to at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion? That one? --Pixelface (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, that one. Thanks for the correction. Yes. Its precise wording may be under discussion, but it's certainly valid, and to my knowledge there's never been any seriously proposed version of it that this image would not fail, so what's the point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless we're going to remove 99.9% of the episode guide photos on Wikipedia, including ones from a number of featured articles such as Homer's Enemy.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a photo of Tony Soprano all alone makes no contribution to readers' understanding of this episode. A similar screenshot could certainly be made of almost any Sopranos episode. Just because screenshots are often used contrary to policy doesn't mean that episode articles get an exemption from WP:NFCC. Mangostar (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the first episode of the series and introduces Tony as a character.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So would someone mind telling me what would be a suitable picture for the Sopranos pilot?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the deciding admin: if you do delete this (despite it being in two articles with a detailed rationale for each) could you tell me what type of picture should replace it?--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't sound as if you'd accept "none" for an answer, right? That's exactly the problem. You have apparently first decided that you want an image (some image, any image), and then you start thinking which image would be best. Wrong. That way you'll never get a valid fair use case. You need to first write something about the episode in the article that actually needs image support to be understood. Some valid piece of analysis. Then, and only then, when it turns out you need an image to support that specific claim, should you start even thinking about images. And in that case it will be totally clear which image it has to be. As long as you can be asking others what image would be appropriate, like you are now, it's really proof you don't need any. The fact that you don't know what image would be best proves you don't really know what you want it for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think an image should be there. Its the first episode of an incredibly iconic and significant television show.

So again, are you going to nominate the images from the featured articles I mentioned earlier? They don't give any analysis on the article either, and hardly fit the criteria that you mentioned. Since you now know about them, there's no reason why you shouldn't have nominated them for deletion yet. If anything, I'm willing to bet 90% of the fair use images on Wikipedia don't fit your criteria either of giving analysis that the article is independent on.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very good argument. Yes, other crappy use of nonfree material exists, and it's currently not humanly possible to tackle it all at once. So it's whatever comes first to somebody's notice, to the degree people find time and energy dealing with it. But this is not the first case, hundreds of images in similar cases have already been deleted. Routine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I gave an example of a featured article's pict which would fail your strict critera, Homer's Enemy. Are you going to nominate Image:Homer'sEnemy.png for deletion, now that you know of its existence?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might, at some point. It certainly isn't used well. But please don't tell me when and iin what order I have to do my editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that featured articles would fail your criteria. Its incredibly hard to get an article to featured status. And yet there are numbers of featured articles that contain images that, according to your standards, would fail fair use policies and be subject to speedy deletion. I wonder what that says about how incredibly strict your criteria is.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look a bit more closely, that Simpsons article is actually pretty good. The first TV episode article I've ever seen whose plot summary is readable and well linked to analytic discussion. Actually, in that context, I'd say the image does make sense. I'd still personally prefer it if it was also optically and textually integrated more closely, but what really matters is the text. I keep saying, write better articles and you get better fair use cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I were to find behind-the-scenes information by the writers/actors would that be better?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. I'll try finding a more plot-specific episode pic (like Tony with Dr. Melfi) and then I'll try finding some information about the making of the episode and the significance (for example, I don't know if this is what I'll do) about the characters or their relationships? Does that sound better?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the analytical coverage of the article would of course be the best outcome this discussion could have. Yes, I'd say if there's something useful to say about the constellation of characters, that might give a case for having an image to illustrate it. For instance, what makes the case of the Simpsons article so good is the "Production" section where it analyses the meaning of the character ("what would happen if a real, somewhat humorless human had to deal with Homer? [...] modeled after Michael Douglas in the movie Falling Down" and all that.) It's only in conjunction with that analytical text that the image gives me the feeling I really come away from it having learned something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: deleted off Wikipedia because the image exists on the Commons. Photo credit is not given in Wikipedia articles and I have removed it from the Marvin Williams article. Photo credit is on the image summary page only. Photo credit can be required for re-use and distribution and that is also a requirement of the Creative Commons license being used. -Nv8200p talk 17:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marvin_Williams.jpg[edit]

Image:Marvin_Williams.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chrisjnelson (notify | contribs).

• This is a test case for several similarly licensed images. User:Chrisjnelson has stipulated that credit must be in the image caption, which goes against our general policy. Do we allow this, or must the photos be deleted? Mangostar (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What general policy? And if it is, then I'll just re-upload them with a watermark.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IUP: "Also, user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." -- No watermarks, no captions in the article. That is, the same credit for photographers as for writers. Mangostar (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so they'd rather there be no image than a watermarked image? Well that's retarded.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The image use policy, an official policy, is pretty clear about this. However, if it is decided that this type of credit is acceptable, it is not formatted properly. According to WP:WAWI, a link to a Wikipedia page, in this case a user page, should use external link style so that it works in contexts outside of Wikipedia. Note the way that Jimmy Wales#External links links to a user page. Khatru2 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: deleted. No evidence provided that image was released under a creative commons license or is public domain. No OTRS ticket. Permission from the (possible) copyright holder must be in writing and specific to the license tag. -Nv8200p talk 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ferry field derived from Aerial University of Michigan image.JPG[edit]

Image:Ferry field derived from Aerial University of Michigan image.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).

• Image details and source make no mention of any CC license. Support for that license has not been provided. Source dates image to 1923. As the criterion for PD-US is publication before 1.1.1923, it does not appear that this image could, in the alternative, be considered PD. Source, additionally, asserts "This image may be protected by copyright law." ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February or March, I got permission from Bentley Historical Library to use photos on this database for WP. We have been through IFDs on past Michigan athletics images. Basically, Bentley charges money for many images and makes others available for free use. This is a database of the free use images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notified permissions of my lengthy discussions with Bentley which occurred over the course of 8 or ten weeks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not true that to be PD-US, it has to be published before 1923; instead, if it was published before 1923, it is PD-US. It doesn't seem enough information to prove that it is PD, however, and I'm curious if Bentley has the rights or is just running on "nobody will sue us".--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the field no longer looks like that, a fair use argument could be made on the grounds that no free equivalent is possible, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears the field was built in 1906, so it should be possible to obtain a pre-1923 photo. Kelly ^hi! 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be possible; however, just because the field was built in 1906, doesn't mean that pictures of the field were published prior to 1923.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nor an aerial photo, necessarily. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I concur that since the football seating is no longer present a fair use argument exists, but this database is for images that they avail to the public.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you have a response and ticket number from OTRS confirming that, I think this can easily be Kept. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Decorative screen shot not necessary for readers understanding of article. -Nv8200p talk 19:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grime2.jpg[edit]

Image:Grime2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by M.C._Brown_Shoes (notify | contribs).

• Doesn't meaningfully assist the reader's understanding of the article. PhilKnight (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it does, it shows his death scene, which is an important plot point in the episode. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shows him by some cables, this doesn't meaningfully assist the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Deleted.  Explicitly "permission for Wikipedia" i.e. unfree.  Meets speedy deletion criterion, even.  WilyD 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brian_Thompson_Tillamook_Treasure_OnSet.jpg[edit]

Image:Brian_Thompson_Tillamook_Treasure_OnSet.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Radoyon (notify | contribs).

• No evidence the image has been released into the public domain, appears to be copyrighted, and depicting a living person, so repaceable. PhilKnight (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete per WP:COPYRIGHT. BJ^Talk 04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahmadinejad-Rabbis.jpg and Image:Ahmadinejad-NoZionism.jpg[edit]

Image:Ahmadinejad-Rabbis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Evil Spartan (notify | contribs).

• Copyright violation, image originally had watermark, it was removed. and licence claims this picture from 2005 was published before 1923. This image is copyrighted. Epson291 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as stated on the page, it is public domain in the United States because Iran is not party to international copyright agreements, and the US does not recognize copyrights when they are created by a citizen of Iran and published there [5]. En.Wikipedia clearly has a rule that if a document is public domain in the US, it is legal here (see ((PD-US-1923-abroad))) because the Wikimedia servers are in the US and this is the English language Wikipedia (other language Wikipedias that allow uploads have similar rules). The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm the images were in fact taken by a citizen of Iran? Epson291 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will see from the file link that the images are credited collectively to Presidency of The Islamic Republic of Iran News Service and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Service respectively. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had a rule that notwithstanding US law, we recognize any copyright even if it is void in the US. ViperSnake151 11:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; we generally do, as per Jimbo Wales, recognize the copyright of Iran and other nations that have not signed a copyright agreement with the US. It's bad, IMO, in that they should suffer the downsides as well as reap the benefits of their choice. On the other hand, if Iran, etc., do sign a copyright agreement, it will return these works to copyright and while we would't have to delete them immediately, we might have to in the future. ([6] has the gory details about what we would have to do in that circumstance.) I understand Iran has made several attempts to join the WTO, blocked only by the US, and if they did so, their works would be under copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the diffs for Mr. Wales statement? The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[7]. He may have said other stuff elsewhere and elsewhen, but that's what a quick Google search turned up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if we delete this, then we must, by all means, strive for the deletion of ((PD-US-1923-abroad)), as our policies would be contradictory. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no contradiction. There are among others two principles which encourage us to treat this as if they were copyrighted. You can argue that copyright for authors is a moral right that we should uphold, but that does not necessarily bring agreement with the extended length of copyright. I would argue instead that Iran is prepared to join the WTO, which would bring them in line with modern copyright law, and the US would then retroactively extend copyright protection to these pictures, which leaves us an issue we have to clean up. While theoretically the US could retroactively extend copyright protection to any public domain work, the URAA is the only major example (the other had the US return copyright to certain German works appropriated during WWII), and Congress seems loath to do that, for sound commercial reasons. This clearly has nothing to with PD-US-1923-abroad, which are out of copyright and likely to stay that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.