Talk:Wynnewood, Dallas

Do historic images fail WP:NFCC#8?

User Werieth claims that the historic images displayed with this article fail WP:NFCC#8. The recommendation reads: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." My claim is that the images are necessary for an understanding of the history of Wynnewood, and that their omission would significantly detract from the value of the article. Please help decide this issue by offering opinions on this matter.Wissembourg (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

To be specific the files fail WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Yes they make the article look pretty, but are not required. Werieth (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the files cannot be re-added until there is consensus to do so. WP:NFCC is fairly explicit on that. Werieth (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification: The images can be viewed at Special:PermanentLink/550202246. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, there's very little of historical significance these photos add. The structure of the homes isn't very unique compared to other homes at the time (which we have free images of) and scans of the promotional stuff isn't very useful. Not appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• A historic image doesn't automatically violate WP:NFCC#8. Some opinions of each of the images:
  • File:Wynnewood (Dallas) 1.JPG: Taken from Dallas News where it was published on 4 March 1946. Dallas News is not listed here so the image appears to be in the public domain. See {{PD-US-not renewed}}. WP:NFCC#8 doesn't apply to images which are in the public domain.
  • File:Dallas Public Library MA03-4-B2F8.jpg: Taken from a library. It's unclear how the image ended up there, so there is no way to tell if the image is protected by copyright or not, so we have to assume that it is. Shows a generic house in Wynnewood. Easily replaceable by a different photo of a house in Wynnewood, for example by a modern photo of that house.
  • File:Wynnewood (Dallas) 2.JPG: From the same newspaper as the first image, except that it was published one day earlier. As all issues from 1946 of that newspaper appear to be in the public domain, so is this image.
  • File:American Home Realty Wynnewood Brochure (1953) 2.JPG, File:American Home Realty Wynnewood Brochure (1953) 3.JPG & File:American Home Realty Wynnewood Brochure (1953) 5.JPG: From a brochure from 1953. In order to be protected by copyright, the publisher of the brochure had to renew the copyright to the brochure 28 years after it was published (that is, in 1981). What potential market value would the brochure have in 1981? Presumably zero, so it seems highly unlikely that the copyright was renewed. The photos are almost certainly in the public domain. Does the brochure have a title? If so, it would be nice to have that in the source field on the file information page.
  • File:Wynnewood (Dallas) 3.JPG: 1951 issue of The Daily Times Herald. 1951+28 = 1979. As this is after 1977, copyright renewals are posted electronically instead of being listed in a paper book. A search for "Daily Times Herald" at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ reveals zero hits, so the newspaper is presumably in the public domain. See {{PD-US-not renewed}}.

Summary: Six out of the seven so-called "non-free" images seem to be in the public domain. The copyright status of the last image is unclear, and that image will have to be deleted unless it can be shown that it also is in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful clarification. I have updated the copyright information in the relevant image files and then restored the images (minus the one from the Dallas Public Library) to the article. Wissembourg (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)