Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Wrightflyer.jpg

Reason

It's a marvelous photograph, but it may not be public domain. The Library of Congress owns the negative but is not the author and thus not the copyright-holder (there's been some confusion about this in the past). The photographer, John T. Daniels, died in 1947 as far as I can tell. So it won't be {{PD-old-70}} until 2018. If it was published before 1922, it's {{PD-US}}, but I haven't been able to determine the date of first publication--taking a photograph is not publication. Chick Bowen 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

Chick Bowen

• Confirm copyright (I would like for this to be kept an FP, but only if we can be certain it's free). — Chick Bowen 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment From the source: "There are no known restrictions on the photographs taken by the Wright Brothers. Privacy and publicity rights may apply." HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This photograph was donated to the LOC along with the Wright brothers' personal collection. But it was not taken by the Wright brothers; it was taken by Mr. Daniels. Chick Bowen 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It says "Attributed to Wilbur and/or Orville Wright.", it could be Mr. Daniels was in their employ at the time. It also says "Orville Wright preset the camera and had John T. Daniels squeeze the rubber bulb, tripping the shutter.", it seems Mr. Daniels was an assistant. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I trust that the LOC isn't going to miss something as obvious as 70 years pma. If Daniels was an assistant, then it's likely a work-for-hire and he wouldn't own the copyright. I don't see why we can't trust the "No known restrictions" bit. howcheng {chat} 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • What tag should we put on it in that case? The current one there is deprecated. Perhaps {{pd-because}}, with an explanation? Chick Bowen 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I've done that before: {{PD-because|the Library of Congress says it is.}} howcheng {chat} 07:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, if someone else could put a statement together I'd appreciate that. I'm still not fully comfortable with declaring it to be public domain, when the reality is only that no rights-holder has placed restrictions on use. Chick Bowen 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well said Howcheng. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The LoC is our reliable source on intellectual property. Speculation doesn't trump their assessment. ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If LoC says it's free, let's leave it at that. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 08:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)