The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Overall: Core criteria checked per above template. My sole reservation is the graphic; there may be a "less busy" photo available on another nom on the day this runs. However, that detail does not prevent me from approving this nom as GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Image is not properly licensed; it lacks a PD tag for the US, and is likely not PD in the US owing to the URAA. If this was first published in the 1950s, copyright would have expired in the 2000s; as such, the 1996 URAA would have extended copyright in the US. To be adequately free for Commons, images need to be in the PD in both the US and the source country. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Some help please? Don't know how to explain these things. Sigh. Need to read more on the licensing stuff. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Zanhe's work with the 1930s is generally okay, copyright-wise (I've checked several of his/her articles before). Here, we have two problems. First, we don't know for sure that this was published (not taken) in the 1950s as the source provided is a modern website; this is necessary per Chinese law. Second is the URAA issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
As I understand anything from this year minus fifty years and before is alright per PD CN. Not so sure about URAA. The caption from webpage merely provides the details regarding when and where the pic was taken. But it's a run-of-the-mill pop culture website so it shouldn't be the copyright holder. This may be an assumption, but it shouldn't have been published too late (e.g. more than one or two years) after its being taken.Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I have tremendous respect for Crisco 1492, who introduced me to the concept of URAA a few years back. However, the position of the WMF trustees has changed with regard to URAA in the last couple of years, resulting in a new consensus on the Commons that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion". See discussion at Commons:Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. -Zanhe (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, Kingoflettuce, the issue is publication (at least per the template). The source you're using is from the 2000s, and is thus worthless for calculating copyright (anything first published in the 2000s will be copyright in China). Zanhe's movie star images were promotional stills, and those are by definition published soon before/after a film is released. The bodybuilding image... not so much. There's a reason I've sunk several hundred dollars in buying old magazines when images of the same subject are available online (Indonesian copyright law, but it's also based on publication).
Zan, I remember that discussion. You'll note that commons:Commons:URAA-restored copyrights and commons:Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act (the latter a policy) bear a much different wording: "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The image is hard to see at DYK resolution, so my suggestion would be to drop it from the nomination. However, if there are issues with its use in the article—the other image is fine, but this one is still nominated for deletion on Commons—that will delay the nomination here until they are settled (I doubt it would be eligible for an NFCC license, though I could be wrong in that regard). Chris Woodrich, Zanhe, Kingoflettuce: how can we proceed from here? It's been two weeks with no progress. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Dropping the disputed image from the DYK nom, but not the article, should work. The DYK criteria does not include the copyright status for all images in the article. Otherwise this article could be waiting for months. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
whatever floats your boats. Ideally I would have hoped for the pic to be included on DYK day, but be as it may, we shall let it go pictureless. BTW BlueMoonset, resultantly IS a word ;) you are doing me a disservice by dismissing it as a "non-word". Besides, nothing was egregious about its use in the article. Anyways. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Core criteria checked per above template. My sole reservation is the graphic; there may be a "less busy" photo available on another nom on the day this runs. However, that detail does not prevent me from approving this nom as GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Image is not properly licensed; it lacks a PD tag for the US, and is likely not PD in the US owing to the URAA. If this was first published in the 1950s, copyright would have expired in the 2000s; as such, the 1996 URAA would have extended copyright in the US. To be adequately free for Commons, images need to be in the PD in both the US and the source country. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The image is hard to see at DYK resolution, so my suggestion would be to drop it from the nomination. However, if there are issues with its use in the article—the other image is fine, but this one is still nominated for deletion on Commons—that will delay the nomination here until they are settled (I doubt it would be eligible for an NFCC license, though I could be wrong in that regard). Chris Woodrich, Zanhe, Kingoflettuce: how can we proceed from here? It's been two weeks with no progress. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)