Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Phillipedison1891/Simpleinsomnia batch delete

Files uploaded by Flickr account "simpleinsomnia" and Siloepic (talk · contribs)

This is the "simpleinsomnia" Flickr account that just uploads old-looking photos without any additional information. At least it did before it shut down. We've dealt with it many, many times before. I've spot checked quite a few with Google Lens and TinEye and the only matches I can find are those that cite back to that Flickr account. Also, for what it's worth, the uploader of all these is a sockpuppet who was blocked on their other account for uploaded non-free media after being warned.

I know it is impossible to prove a negative, but I think we need a rationale for public domain that is a bit more solid that "it looks really old." Also, even for a public domain photo, a complete lack of source information means it has very limited educational value.

List of files

Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/delete discussion

Delete most, if not all. Beyond copyright concerns, we simply have no context for any of these photos, which makes them very difficult to categorize and use. We can make some educated guesses - for instance, File:"On limits to occupation personnel" (12818640145).jpg is most likely from the post-WW2 occupation of Japan - but that's just a guess, and we have no way of validating those guesses. Omphalographer (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too many to digest this quickly. The images became public when they left the custody of the creator and none would have been registered for copyrights or contained a copyright symbol, all required prior to 1989. They all appear to have come from Illinois based on the few I have researched so far. We have previously recognized creations as an {{Orphan work}}. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN: What are the sources for the "circa" dates that you're adding to some of these? Phillipedison1891 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same way every image gets an estimated date. We use visual cues and the known history of cabinet cards. An interesting historical fact is that photographs did not come with exif data. Digital date stamping didn't begin until 1990. Id your worry that these images are from sooner than 1989? --RAN (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that it detracts from our collections' educational value when photos are dated based off of a hunch or from what ChatGPT thinks. There's nothing about this photo that is inconsistent with a 1930s or 1940s date. We only know that it's not 1900s or 1910s because of the radio. I have reverted that edit since there appears to be absolutely no basis for the particular 1925 dating. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do know what the "circa" means in "circa 1925", circa 1925 is not a synonym for "1925 dating". ChatGPT does not just assign a date, it rationalizes it by examining the clothing and home décor. It has access to billions of dated images. Every archive dates images in a similar manner, by décor and clothing and even the paper the image is printed on. --RAN (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For copyright purposes, this is not at all sufficient. ChatGPT is not a crystal ball, and cannot reliably rule out scenarios like historical reenactments. Omphalographer (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have withdrawn several files that meet both of the following criteria: 1. known publisher or photography studio 2. conclusively dated to before 1930. Thanks, DS. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, for images to be copyrighted in the US prior to 1964, they needed to register for a copyright, then renew that copyright. For up to 1989 you still had to display a copyright symbol, the year, and the name of the copyright holder. If you look through the copyright registrations you see a few images copyrighted each year, mostly identifiable iconic images. An amateur photographer and even a commercial photographer would not have paid a lawyer to file for a registration. Even the Associated Press did not bother--RAN (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

If the photos were not published, as is likely with amateur or family photos, they would not have to comply with any of those formalities, and the term of copyright would be counted under the 1978 Act. (Under the earlier regime, unpublished works were protected by "common law copyright", a ridiculous concept that the 1978 Act was meant to replace.) This means 70 years after the death of the photographer, or 120 years after creation if the identity of the photographer is unknown. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing efforts

At the very least, this one is the work of John G. Brittingham, who was active in the 1880s and 1890s. DS (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this one is by Martin Shoemaker, who died in 1939. DS (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this one is the work of R. H. Mann, who was active in the 1880s. DS (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1920 census says that R.H. Mann was running a hotel in Virginia, IL, so his photography career was almost certainly ended by that date. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure simpleinsomnia was trying to do archiving, and as such they added metadata to their images when it was easily available. Thus, for instance, I'm willing to accept that this is the front of a postcard whose back has a 1908 postmark. DS (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this one is by John Coleman Elrod (died July 21, 1891).

DS (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the metadata argument shows us that this one is from no later than June 26 1914. DS (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is the 10251, which went out of service in 1962, and the background pretty much indicates that this is a train still in service (especially when compared to the photos taken in the National Museum of Transportation). "Taken before 1963" might not be enough to resolve the copyright issues, but it's useful metadata just the same. DS (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phillipedison1891(don't forget the Serious Young Man one) DS (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Shoemaker was active at least through 1930, per your source. I'm not quite comfortable about that one. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re: his date of death, you mean? FindAGrave entry for his daughter, citing a published source for him being a photographer of that name; FindAGrave entry for him, again citing a published source. DS (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all those "flood damage in Lock Haven, PA" photos can be dated to the 1936 flood (the next big one was in 1972, which doesn't match the quality of the photos). As with the train pic, "from 1936" is useful metadata even if it doesn't resolve the copyright issues, and gives us a date for when the images can be restored. DS (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]