File:Morris.bishop.bowl.jpeg

Morris Bishop (1893–1973)

Author unknown.

Source: The dust cover of Bishop's book A Bowl of Bishop (published 1954). (The dust cover does not identify the photographer.)

Copyright holder: Most likely the unidentified photographer; possibly Penguin Random House as current (2018) owners of the intellectual property of Dial Press.

This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morris.bishop.bowl.jpeg true

To the uploader: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Template:Non-free use rationale 2 may be helpful for stating the rationale. To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template. If this tag does not accurately describe this image, please replace it with an appropriate one. Fair use true

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
2. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article, because the photo gives an idea of the physical appearance of the biographee.
3. Its use here can have no adverse effect on the commercial value of the original to its (unknown) copyright holder. This is an unusably small version of what is, by 21st-century standards, a poor reproduction of a photograph.
4. It seems unreplaceable: I have tried but failed to find a PD/copyleft alternative.

-- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)