Miscellaneous desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 7

Newspaper images

I subscribe to Newspapers.com, which is a pay site. They claim copyright over all of their content. What I am uncertain about is whether specific items within that content are copyright-protected. For example, if there's a picture of a ballplayer in the early 1900s, can I extract it and upload it because it's theoretically public domain? Or is it the scans made by Newspapers.com that are protected by copyright? Any ideas? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies here. Originality is the key to copyright, in the US. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it's not entirely settled. But it also sounds like the website's copyright claim might be a "bluff". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: - WP:MCQ might be a better venue to ask this particular question. My gut is that the images are PD. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on the country of origin of the image (which is not necessarily that of the paper that published it). If that country is not the US, and the artist or photographer can be identified, you need to know their date of death to settle whether the image has entered the public domain. --Lambiam 07:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking strictly American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. Regardless of possible questions over the Bridgemen decision, and the possibility of different situations in different countries for the case of any copyright over simple faithful reproductions of 2D artworks the WMF's official position is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". Partly as a result of this, Wikimedia Commons does not concern it self over any possible copyright claims arising from faithful reproductions of 2D artworks, see Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.

While the situation for Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag seems slightly more poorly defined (since that page talks about creative enhancement which would apply to PD-Art anyway), I believe it's the same. This is unlike what happens for other stuff, where commons requires the work is in the public domain in both the country of origin and the US.

However copyright of the original photo or newspaper still needs to be consider. For the US, if it isn't a sound recording and it's published before 1925 it's in the public domain, see Commons:Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. You will still need to consider country of origin if it's not the US and as mentioned this often means you need to try and work out who the author is to figure out the date of death. If you make enough effort and it's a country with 70 years from date of death, you can assume it's in the public domain after 120 years, see Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed, but this would barely apply to anything from the early 1900s.

I think you can assume if it's an American baseball player and an image published in a US newspaper, the country of origin is the US. But I'm not sure so suggest you check with someone more experienced before uploading.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Football goal feature

Good morning, I need an explanation. Once upon a time - there are still - football goals, with internal upside-down supports, the so-called elbow systems. Today they are no longer used for the major leagues and major competitions in general, but between the seventies and eighties they were widely used, perhaps there were only those. My question is the following: did these "risers" not risk obstructing, preventing the complete entry of the ball, albeit theoretically? Instead, in addition to being homologated in those years, they were also the best and this gave me this doubt. Thanks a lot to those who want to answer. https://www.google.it/search?q=porta+da+calcio&sxsrf=ALeKk018fnx6_2M-Mg-sF9jJoxHc6yjlTg:1588841343784&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje6Zmfr6HpAhWGiqQKHXOBBGYQ_AUoAXoECAsQAw&biw=1964&bih=985#imgrc=Bxa2SUxRlLBovM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since those "elbows" are totally inside the goal, why would it be a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to everyone, I solved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what’s the hell this was was in US football. I have been in the end zone in US college football in the 1970s when points after were kicked and cannot imagine what this refers to. Edison (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first post in this section that mentions American football. Or are you referring to soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, there are no nets inside the goal posts in gridiron (American / Canadian) football. Sometimes they raise a net in front of the seating area when a field goal or extra point is attempted (can't have fans keeping those expensive pigskins!) but those are out of play. There was a time in gridiron when there were little elbow brackets supporting the crossbar, the lower part of the goalposts being set back a yard or two. But this didn't figure into game action (except maybe when some hard-luck receiver would bang into one). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Cup Final '83

If the return semi-finals Real Sociedad - Hamburg, and Juventus - Widzew Łódź were played at 8 in the evening at the same time, why then in the final is Hamburg, in theory, to be the "home" team? Did they draw a few days before the final? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The game wasn't played in Hamburg. According to 1983 European Cup Final and 1982–83 European Cup the game was played at a neutral site, Olympic Stadium (Athens). --Jayron 32 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even on a neutral ground it is common to designate one team the home team and that appears usually to be the team that played their semi-final first. Home-team status affects for instance whether the match is officially listed as Hamburg – Juventus or Juventus – Hamburg. On a more practical side it determines which team gets to wear their home kit and which has to resort to their away kit. On videos on youtube, it can be seen that Hamburg were wearing red shorts and jerseys, which I'm fairly certain was their away kit at the time, while Juve were dressed in their home kit. To not answer OP's question: It seems plausible that this was determined by a draw before the game, but I have no reference for that. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the answers. To answer both, yes, the meeting place was the Olympic stadium in Athens; the finals are of course always played on the neutral field. The qualified team that plays the semi-final first usually associates it as a "home" team, but this is not always the case. Probably they will have made a draw, because the semifinals were played concurrently, at 8 pm. Again thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.100.198 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]