Template talk:PD-CQ Roll Call

Should this be used for more recent images?

Previously raised as Commons:Village_pump/Copyright in June 2023 by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) and in December 2023 by me, but neither had any discussions around it before being archived.

The template and relevant sites state that it is used for the images from CQ and Roll Call that are in the collection at the Library of Congress, which seems to stop at 2000 (for the Roll Call portion) and at 2010 (for the CQ portion). As stated by Red-tailed hawk, "This appears valid for all photographs specifically held in that collection, but CQ Roll Call was sold to FiscalNote in 2018, so I can't imagine that these permissions were forward-looking or otherwise granted in perpetuity for all works created by CQ Roll Call photographers."

Should this template be used for more recent images from these photographers not part of the collection at the Library of Congress?

Some users who have uploaded recent images from CQ Roll Call: Bremps, TJMSmith, AlaskaGal, and Born Isopod. reppop^talk 00:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that the license is valid for new works created by CQ Roll Call. Might be worth shooting the company an email to ask for clarification, but for now I think we have to be conservative in our application of the template in line with COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Upon second thought, we should confirm with company reps whether the new work is also in the public domain. Bremps... 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone emailed them yet for clarification? reppop^talk 23:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Red-tailed hawk, I can't imagine that the Economist Group negotiated a constraint on what copyright policy FiscalNote could use for the photographs created by their photographers after the acquisition. On the other hand, a photograph created by a CQ Roll Call photographer listed in the LoC's Rights and Restrictions Information page taken before the gift to the LoC might plausibly be eligible for this template if it once appeared in the database mentioned at that link, even if the LoC has not yet placed it online (sometimes the LoC takes quite awhile to process a large collection). —RP88 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

To extend this question further, is this template being justifiably used in recently taken photos such as File:Hunter Biden and Abbe Lowell in 2023.jpg , whose photographer's name actually is on that list? Why would a gift of some works make that photographer's future works public domain?--Noren (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: @Bremps: @RP88: @Reppop: It seems to me that the research guide provided for the Congressional Quarterly & Roll Call Collections in the Library of Congress is quite clear that free use only applies to images that fullfill both conditions: 1) found in the collections, 2) taken by staff photographers.

• Rights & Reproductions (bolding added by me): For researchers hoping to copy and publish images from the Congressional Quarterly and Roll Call Collections, information about how to assess rights to images in the collection and how to obtain both reference and quality copies is provided below.

Rights Information

• CQ Roll Call Photograph Collection - Rights & Restrictions Information

The rights statement lists the staff photographers whose images have no known restrictions. Rights to images by photographers who were not on the magazine staff may be controlled by the photographer or his/her heirs. Privacy and publicity rights may also pertain to some images of people.

• The Image Rights and Restrictions Statements lists the staff photographers whose images in the collections fall under free use.

Summation: Any images in the collections not taken by staff photographers are not covered by this license. Any images taken by staff photographers that are not in the collections are also not covered by this license, i.e., all images taken after the collections were deeded by gift to the Library of Congress in 2011 are not covered by this license. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I already went ahead with nominating some files here and am planning to do some more since there's still a lot from the . reppop^talk 18:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Other problem images claiming free use under the license (the reason I started to look into this in the first place; the fix would be mass deletion but the deletion page is restricted to (Wikimedia Commons?) admins):

• File:Hunter_Biden_and_Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg
• File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023.jpg
• File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023_(cropped).jpg
• File:Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg

and the corresponding Wikipedia files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_and_Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abbe_Lowell_in_2023.jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hunter_Biden_in_2023_(cropped).jpg. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

They aren't in the deletion nomination because I only got the images uploaded by a specific user, and not the cropped versions uploaded by other users. That's why I was planning to do another round with the category itself. reppop^talk 19:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to query for images with a date published/created after the donation date that also have this tag? It would provide us with a list of things to tag for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)