Commons:Deletion requests/File:1963 Cleopatra trailer screenshot (40).jpg

Copyrighted movie, including the whole category, 84 images: Category:Cleopatra (1963 film). The copyright notice is right in the middle of the image. Yann (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Does the film's copyright apply to the trailer ? --Coyau (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liz Taylor 1963.jpg states: "This image is a screenshot made by myself from a public domain movie's trailer. Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. licence : http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=copyright". I don't know whether the claim is valid, though. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Issues:
• 1) The image is currently tagged as PD-US-no notice which is clearly wrong. However I note that the uploader merely tagged it as the generic "PD" still in use on Commons in 2005. User:Red devil 666 changed license to "PD-US-not renewed" in April 2006, which for all I know may be correct. User:Rossrs changed the license to "PD-US-no notice" in July 2007, which a simple look at the image proves is obviously false. Image may or may not be PD, but if so reason and reference needs stating.
• 2) User:Yann wishes a broader evaluation regarding all images in Category:Cleopatra (1963 film). I suggest a new deletion request be filed including all of them; at present there is no notice on the category nor the other images in it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Tagged as "no notice", but a clear copyright notice is seen. No judgement on other images in the category; film trailer might be PD-US-not renewed (someone care to research?) -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing the image history and two messages on my User talk page [1], I have decided that closing this as delete on narrow grounds of false license was not appropriate to the situation. While I contend my deletion for reason for false license was technically correct, it did not address additional issues which need to be settled regarding this and related images. Additional discussion added above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember changing the information for this image, or why I would have done it, but I obviously did and it's obviously wrong. The only information I'm aware of that gives any explanation regarding the general copyright status for old film trailers is this which is from a copyright clearance house. Their contention is that old trailer were either not copyrighted (ie no copyright notice attached to the trailer at the time of its first publication which preceded the independently copyrighted film), or were released with a notice and not renewed. They state that industry custom is to accept that trailers released up to 1972 have not been renewed, ("In any event, industry custom and practice has been to use trailers prior to 1972 based on the above information"), and that a "blanket" copyright status applies to any released after 1976. I've also read somewhere else that movie studios renewed the copyright for most of their films (with some exceptions) but they didn't see any value in the trailers which were not expected to be used again, and therefore either overlooked renewing them or intentionally chose not to. I can't find a source for that, and perhaps someone else might know something about that. It seems logical, but it's clearly not something we can put any faith in without some additional supporting evidence. Rossrs (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this useful information. My questions regarding these images are

1. Do they come from the trailer or from the film? The link you mention says The trailers did not contain copyright notices, or there is a copyright notice here. Their copyright was therefore registered.
2. Was the copyright renewed? I think we have to assume that it was unless we have the proof that it wasn't. Yann (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. They were all uploaded at the same time by the same editor, so it's reasonable to assume that they came from the same source. Several images contain text that would be used in a trailer but not in the film, so again it's reasonable to believe they came from the trailer. No doubt about it - there is a copyright notice.

2. Was it renewed? I don't know. Using the industry standard of considering trailers of this period to be not subject to copyright due to expiration and non-renewal is an assumption rather than proof. A search of the copyright data per [2] shows nil result. Does the absence of a copyright listing for this film trailer indicate that it wasn't renewed? I don't know. It doesn't seem definitive. Where do we go from here? Rossrs (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• at 1:Yes , all these pics are from the trailer: http://www.archive.org/details/Cleopatratrailer1963 And yes, there is a copyright notice, not as usual in the end of the trailer, but in the middle (at 2'22")
• at 2: Something for native speakers, only a few pages

1) A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%......

2) How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work?

3) How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed? . Mutter Erde 78.51.199.130 23:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this resolved in any way? There's a similar issue with this image at a Feature Article Review on the English Wikipedia. The trailer has a copyright notice, though it's unlikely it was renewed. trailer mahanga (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The copyright for the movie was renewed on 1991-09-23 (RE0000544757). I was unable to find any renewal records for the trailer. In fact, the oldest record regarding a preview by 20th Century Fox Productions was from 1988 (PA0000399621). The current database at copyright.gov covers all records since 1978. As a renewal of the trailer was due in 1991, we should be able to find it if it exists. However, I do not know to which extent the copyright of the movie covers the trailer. As the trailer seems to provide previews of selected scenes of the movie, the trailer is possibly covered by the renewed copyright of the movie. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, PD-US-not renewed. (per AFBorchert) Kameraad Pjotr 16:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]