Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/28

27 October 2024

29 October 2024

Deletion requests on 28 October 2024

October 28

File:Legitimacija FK Farbin 2.jpg

1998 document with photo likely not PD in Serbia. Abzeronow (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The document is from 23.4.1950, according to the Wikipedia article where the image is used and this file: File:Legitimacija FK Farbin 3.jpg. Sinigh (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1950 is definitely the more plausible date as, according to the document, the depicted guy's date of birth appears to be the 20 (of month xx) 1927 (I can't decipher the month, hence "xx"). In 1950 that guy (Лукијан Синђелић-Барон) would have been ca. 23 years old. In 1998, he would have been ca. 71 years old. He definitely looks more like 23 in that photo than 71. Nakonana (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can agree with that. With 1950, PD-Yugoslavia would seem to apply for the photo. Abzeronow (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shaneel Shavneel Lal (cropped).jpg

Copyright violation.

The non-cropped version of the image was deleted already for COPYVIO.

Shaneel's book "One of Them" which includes this same photo, copyright to © Bianca Leilua.

User Johnking121 also previously uploaded another photo of Shaneel here that was deleted for copyright violations. Johnking121 was blocked for socking on Wikipedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this business of having to nominate a derivative when the non-cropped version has already been deleted. Needs no discussion; just nuke it as a procedural matter. Schwede 66 02:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it wasn't done at the time – I have no ability to delete it. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:En-au-like a dying duck in a thunderstorm.ogg

I created the file by mistake but it is in use so speedy deletion won't apply Commander Keane (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete File:En-au-Israhell.ogg and File:En-au-harbinger.ogg, exact same situation where I uploaded a file unknowingly with the wrong pronunciation but it is still in use so not suitable for speedy deletion. I have tried removing all uses in all wikis but I got reverted as vandalism. Also, it is lucky I am still around to nominate these files for deletion. Is there a template to warn agaisnt global usage of files that are incorrect? That would be better. Commander Keane (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I no longer have access to a microphone so can't create a corrected version. Commander Keane (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ab590b ba09384fabbd444388562218389836a2~mv2.jpg

Previously published at https://ric.com.br/rn24h/politica/londrina-nao-vai-ser-capital-do-morador-de-rua-diz-tiago-amaral/, requires copyright release via COM:VRT. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lo So Shing Pig.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would categorise this as a 'Works of artistic craftsmanship' rather than a 'graphic work'. The mural was not produced for commercial gain, as a piece of grpahic design usually is. Therefore I as that that you rescind this deletion request. KevForkan (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20171230诸光路艺术墙.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep， This works are made of tiles and it's not temporary ,also it's an indoor artwork so it match the FoP-China COM:FOP#China, People's Republic of MasaneMiyaPA (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @MasaneMiyaPA -- 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Ooligan (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Tiles are 2D or 3D works? --A1Cafel (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/中国 / 中國#Freedom of panorama where it is written (Quote): "OK for 3D works like sculptures (and possibly things like handicrafts, ceramics, and tiles)" This artwork is made with "tiles" of "ceramic." You even wrote the word "tiles" yourself. Thank you for that confirmation of the artwork's material.

@A1Cafel, you know from your decade here, that you should ping me @Ooligan or @MasaneMiyaPA to guarantee a reply. It is not "good faith" to ask a question and not use the ping tool to notify other Users in order to give them a fair and timely chance to answer. -- Ooligan (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too much ping will be annoying, so I generally don't ping someone unless there are some crucial issues. Also the law said "possibly", so there may still be an argument. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20171230嘉松中路站艺术墙.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCOM:FOP China, Indoor artworks made of tiles and match the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China MasaneMiyaPA (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3D stained-glass artwork. Ok per @MasaneMiyaPA. -- Ooligan (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiles are 2D works, not 3D works. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20160925钱江世纪城站艺术墙.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @MasaneMiyaPA -- Ooligan (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:FoP-China， This is not an 2D work if you look up MasaneMiyaPA (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/中国 / 中國#Freedom of panorama where it is written (Quote): "OK for 3D works like sculptures (and possibly things like handicrafts, ceramics, and tiles)" -- Ooligan (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Africa addio (1966) - Titolo.png

The image clearly does not meet the definition of a “simple photograph” under Italian copyright law, but the logo can be cut out because the logo image design is too simple. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is from a film stock, which is included under Italy's broad definition of "simple photograph". IronGargoyle (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ICPspanColon.png

Unless the author is one of the two people listed (which would need COM:VRT verification) then this clearly isn't their own work. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ICPcertificateIncheon.png

Clearly not own work. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK 港鐵 MTR 上水站 Sheung Shui Station concourse shop 7-Eleven Store magazines September 2022 Px3.jpg

Per COM:BOOK メイド理世 (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Magazines are COM:DM, as the focus of the image is a stocked supermarket shelf, not any of the individual cover designs. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not de minimis. メイド理世 (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 柯士甸道 140 Austin Road Market Place by Jasons Supermarket goods Thai Soymilk product brand 大力獅 Lactasoy September 2022 Px3

COM:PACKAGE

メイド理世 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 5 images. メイド理世 (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on what basis? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

only a text, not artistic work メイド理世 (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the depicted text falls under {{PD-text}}. (

Keep) ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That's the nominating party who's voting keep. Nakonana (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Standard of the Chief Adviser of Bangladesh.png

There is now a new version of this image. Kırmızı süleyman (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Cyclonebiskit

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:June 16, 2010 Dupree, South Dakota tornado.JPG: County sheriff emailed 22 September, no response. VRT ticket:2024102810001392

File:April 25, 2014 Greene County, North Carolina tornado.jpg: The TV station this was sourced from belongs to Nexstar. Last contact in my email thread with Nexstar's licensing team was October 1, at which time, they had not yet located this image in their archive. They also advised that still images are subject to a flat license fee for editorial use, making it appear they are unlikely to license freely or surrender their copyright. VRT ticket:2024102810001454

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version

File:Warsangli Linnet.jpg

Invalid license, no free license on given source page. Achim55 (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TVK Offficial Flag.svg

Official Flag of a political party. Need to establish the link with the uploader to know if they have made it. Otherwise the rights must be with the political party. ShaanSengupta^Talk 09:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google image search shows that this is available on various social media platforms and news articles before 22 Aug the date mentioned here. ShaanSengupta^Talk 10:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file is mentioned in the VRT ticket 2024102810001561. --Ratekreel (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to EN wiki. Falls under WP:NFCCP Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jonas in the studio 2022 150dpi.jpg

Possible copyright violation: image has been previously published in https://www.skaraborgsbygden.se/2022/10/23/jonas-skapar-sitt-eget-forunderliga-liverodland-931ef/ MKFI (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete copyvios like this can be tagged using the ajax quick delete options like the options in my common.js. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikibully.jpg

This file (File:Stop bullying Serbia 23.02.2008.jpg) has been deleted because it is based on a derivative work. Absolutiva (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by WeatherWriter

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:The August 6, 2023 EF2 tornado south of Edinburg, Illinois.jpg: Photographer still owns the copyright. Stopped responding September 12 when asked about releasing it. VRT ticket:2024102810003738
File:A tornado on April 16, 2024.jpg: Photographer still owns the copyright. Stopped responding September 12 when asked about releasing it. VRT ticket:2024102810003756
File:The Gary, Indiana tornado on February 27, 2024.jpg: Photographer and this image easily findable on X; in the thread that follows, they grant permission to multiple media agencies to use, but they eventually stop responding. In my records, I noted that I had also messaged this creator, but I cannot find where I did that, so this might be an error. Anyway, I have messaged them on October 28 and will update this entry if they reply. VRT ticket:2024102810004308
File:Tim Marshall photograph of the 2023 Matador, Texas tornado.jpg: I was in correspondence with Tim Marshall about two other images of his hosted on the Commons. He was initially very responsive and seemed open to the idea of free licensing, but stopped responding on October 2, as soon as I showed him the release template. VRT ticket:2024100110011645

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:F4 damage to the Twin Cinemas in Van Wert, Ohio.jpg. Per the National Science Foundation, the photographer of this image is a NOAA employee (and notes they were on official duty). The NSF photo is of the same structure from a difference angle. There is no evidence to dispute what the National Science Foundation says either. WeatherWriter (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it -- can you show me where the NSF says either that Paul Van Dyke worked for the NOAA or that he was on official duty when he took the photo? --Rlandmann (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a document that identifies Paul Van Dyke as a "volunteer ham radio spotter" who accompanied NOAA staff during the damage survey. It doesn't say he was an actual NOAA employee. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also just got a super-quick response from NWS Northern Indiana to say that Paul Van Dyke's photos are attributable to him personally. I forwarded this response to the VRT: ticket:2024102810012853.

This is another example of why we can't rely on fourth-party attributions to make determinations about copyright and licensing (as already ratified in the RfC), no matter how reliable the fourth party is. And even if the NSF had said that Mr Van Dyke had been an on-duty NOAA employee (which I'm still not seeing...) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I misread the NSF post. However, the document found by Ixfd64 + Rlandmann getting "attributable" from NWS confirms my IRL knowledge at least. The photo is free to use as he was apart of the survey team, even though he was not active NWS staff. Just the same as my IRL time with NOAA-related surveys/projects went. Since there is no immediate evidence, COM:PRP means the Commons must delete this photo. However, for the record, this photo is free-to-use as it was taken amid a formal survey...just has to be deleted per COM:PRP as there is no public declaration from Mr. Dyke. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have reached an incorrect conclusion, and this is a good example of the dangers of overgeneralising from insufficient data. I have now had a second response from NWS Northern Indiana stating that although Mr Van Dyke was embedded within an NWS survey team, he owns the copyrights to his work, and his permission to the NWS to use his work extended only to their web story.

As for the NSF, he might have had a different arrangement with them, or someone at the NSF might simply have made the same mistake that you (and very many others on the Commons) made and just assumed that "on weather.gov = free to use" (for any of the various reasons that people have believed this).

More broadly, we now know that we cannot simply assume that work done by individuals who are not NWS/NOAA staff on NWS/NOAA projects or activities is necessarily free to use. We now know that this varies on a case-to-case basis and we need to check, rather than just guess. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/"cvb" "CoA Lab-fr" -"CoA Lab-fr:CVB"

Fichiers inutilisables, erronés ou avec des défauts, que le téléverseur a remplacés par de nouveaux fichiers (voir pages des images) au lieu de téléverser une nouvelle version par dessus l'existante.

Unusable, faulty or defective files, which the uploader replaced with new files (see image pages) instead of uploading a new version over the existing one.

Kontributor 2K (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alain Bütler.jpg

possible copyvio © Photostudio Stallone - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the full rights on this image, it's free to use. 2A02:1210:2A36:A800:7239:BA8B:3C4B:A090 10:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i wasn't logged in. I own the full rights of this image. It's free to use. Alainbuetler (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need VRT approval. Until then,

delete until verification received All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Skyodyssey~commonswiki

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Secor IL tor 30May04.jpg: Photographer messaged September 22; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810005745

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Illinois image.

Neutral on the others pending any further details. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pacmanstyle.jpg

I am afraid but the exterior of this arcade machine is covered with artworks that are protected by copyright, and we do not have the necessary permission from the rightsholder. Gnom (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denys-deLaPatelliere-1951-Harcourt.png

Not a Harcourt photo, photographer is Sam Lévin (1904–1992) Yann (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Rtrukhin (talk · contribs)

Unused content related to non-notable club, copyright status unclear, out of scope: uk:Вікіпедія:Статті-кандидати_на_вилучення/5_квітня_2023#Вовча_Ліга_(пластовий_курінь)

Nutshinou ^Talk! 11:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context: Вовча Ліга is a Ukrainian scouting group. The first three images appear to be their rank insignia. And the other files are also related to that group. Not sure if this would make them in Commons scope or not as Commons has other notability/scope criteria than Wikipedia. Nakonana (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for licensing/permission: the uploader is likely the "commandant" of that group judging by the user name R(oman) Trukhin (Роман Трухін)[1]. Nakonana (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They still need to verify their identity with VRT All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by ChessEric

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Carbon-Morton Mills EF2 tornado May 2024.jpg: Photographer messaged September 12; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810006217
File:Northeast of Corning Wind Turbine Fire May 2024.jpg and File:Corning EF1 tornado May 2024.jpg: These two images by the same photographer -- emailed on October 2; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810006315
File:2016 Pensacola tornado.jpg: Screengrab from a video. Videographer's agent contacted; stopped responding October 5 when asked about free licensing (no surprise!) VRT ticket:2024102810006413a

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one at a time please. Thank you. ChessEric (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per @Rlandmann correspondence. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s better for me to vote 1 at a time. ChessEric (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Incunabolo in carta e pergamena restaurato. Trogus Pompeius. Iustini Epitoma in Trogi Pompei historias. Roma. Udalricus Gallus, c. 1470. - Biblioteca Arcivescovile "Annibale De Leo".jpg

G1. accidental creation Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Золоті динари ІДІЛу.jpg

Fake license. This is a screenshot from the ISIS video "The Rise of the Khilafah and the return of the gold dinar". Soulr8 (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISIS 25 Fulûs coin obverse.jpg

Not own work Soulr8 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the picture. Australian Coin Information (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soulr8, what's the basis for your assertion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISIS 25 Fulûs coin reverse.jpg

Not own work Soulr8 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the picture. Australian Coin Information (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JazzOpen2023 Grace Jones Fotos ReinerPfisterer Opus DSC 6869.jpg

possible copyvio © REINER PFISTERER - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kraftwerk RP07548.jpg

possible copyvio © REINER PFISTERER - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JazzOpen2022 John Legend Foto ReinerPfisterer Opus RP01782.jpg

possible copyvio © REINER PFISTERER - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20240718 JazzOpen Noir De Soul (14 von 19).jpg

possible copyvio © Stavros Konstantinidis - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20240728 JazzOpen Younee (22 von 22).jpg

possible copyvio © Stavros Konstantinidis - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:56A8591.jpg

possible copyvio © Christian Hass - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JO2024 Angelique Kidjo Foto Reiner Pfisterer DSC 2745.jpg

possible copyvio © REINER PFISTERER - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JO2024 Herbert Grönemeyer Foto Reiner Pfisterer RP1 9476.jpg

possible copyvio © REINER PFISTERER - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JO2024 Lenny Kravitz Foto Reiner Pfisterer RP1 0365.jpg

possible copyvio © REINER PFISTERER - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by TheAustinMan

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:March 02, 2012 West Liberty, KY Aerial Tornado Damage.jpg, File:March 02, 2012 West Liberty, KY Aerial Tornado Damage 2.jpg, and File:March 02, 2012 Salyersville, KY Aerial Tornado Damage.jpg: Photographer messaged September 12; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810007207
File:2010-05-18 Wyoming Tornadoes.JPG: Photographer messaged September 22; read; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810007743

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on all images except the Billings one.

Weak delete for the Billings picture. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:弦巻営業所営業案内 20220401.jpg

被写体は路線バスの各路線の終起点、経由地、距離と所要時間、運行間隔、便数、始発終発時刻をまとめた表形式の一覧。見やすくまとめられていることで編集著作物となる可能性があり、該当の場合これを詳細に写した画像も使用不可。 Peka (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation: "The subject is a table listing the starting and ending points, stops, distances and travel times, intervals, number of services, and starting and ending times of bus routes. Because it is summarized in an easy-to-read format, it may be considered an edited work, and if so, images showing this in detail may not be used." So you're saying that bus schedules are copyrighted texts in Japan? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me correct it. intervals were not shown in this image. I am sorry.

Bus timetables are not subject to copyright in Japan either. Typical bus timetables in Japan shows destinations and departure times, like File:阪急バス阪神尼崎バス停6番乗り場時刻表.jpg and File:阪神バス昭和通停留所東側平日.jpg. Though the image not shows detailed departure times.

I don't think the image is a timetable. It is a document listing the routes of a certain bus office. --Peka (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, still no kind of creative writing, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

元写真を撮影し、アップロードした本人です。

本写真が違法と見なされるならば削除すべきとなりますが、この場合、記事における路線名の出典元の提示方法を教えて頂けないでしょうか。

合法かつ読み手の困らない体裁に仕立てられればと思います。 Matsuri shonan (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by HurricaneHink

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Anderson Hills Tornado (1995).jpg: Screenshot from a video. Videographer messaged September 23; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810008886
File:Ivan NC Tornado Damage.jpg, File:08-14-04 Harnett County, NC Tornado.jpg, File:Alberto NC flooding.jpg, and File:Alberto NC flooding - edit.jpg: All these other images come from pages with general attributions to multiple different individuals and agencies, without specifying which image came from where. I have not put in the labour required to disentangle these, although it might be worth the effort to someone else.

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per @Rlandmann and @Hurricanehink. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elderly man having lunch at a hawker centre.jpg

wrong file uploaded Donplayplayah (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt

The Studio Harcourt photographs have been discussed numerous times. The lengthiest discussions were probably those this year, 2024, a few months ago at Commons:Village pump/copyright. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/07#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992). These discussions were rather thorough, and the outcome was that the majority of the Studio Harcourt photos Wikimedia Commons is hosting today are not under a free license, and they are also not in the public domain in the United States or not in the public domain in both France and the United States.

A short recap (details at the COM:VPC links above): Studio Harcourt was a photo studio founded in Paris in 1934. The studio soon gained prominence as a "celebrity" studio, which means many of its photos are of notable people and interesting for Commons. Studio Harcourt ran into economic difficulties and had to sell some of its assets, including some 5 million photos and the economic rights (copyrights, or patrimonial rights in France) to those photos. These photos and the rights were acquired by the French state in 1989/1991, directly or from third parties (there were at least two batches). User:Günther Frager found a 2003 French court case, Studio Harcourt vs Mélodie (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 4 février 2003, 2001/17786), which confirmed that the French state owned those rights at least in 2003. And indeed, on various websites offering the photos the French state claims a copyright for them to this day.

The original Studio Harcourt was liquidated (even if User:Tisourcier insists that this is not the case because some photo historian wrote it in a book, the court case clearly indicates the liquidation happened). The Studio Harcourt brand name and logo was sold in an auction and acquired by others. These others then opened a new photo studio under the traditional Harcourt name. There were several name changes, see the VPC archives for details. This "new" Studio Harcourt was one of the two parties involved in the 2003 court decision cited above. It also, as User:Studio Harcourt, uploaded 100 newer photos to Wikimedia Commons in 2010 (these 100 files are not nominated for deletion with this deletion request). Finally, the "new" Studio Harcourt was also a party involved in another court decision from 2014, which decided that in France, photos from Studio Harcourt are collective works, giving them a copyright of 70 years from creation/publication (and not 70 years after the photographer's death which would be the norm in France).

So accd. to the 2014 court decision, as of 2024, all Studio Harcourt photos from 1953 or older are in the public domain in France. Since France had a copyright term of 58 years and 120 days on its URAA date (January 1, 1996), all Studio Harcourt photos from before 1937 should also be in the public domain in the US, because their US copyrights were not restored by the URAA. Any more recent photos are however still protected in the US by the usual 95 year term.

Which means this deletion request nominates Studio Harcourt photos from 1937 or newer (except the 100 newer photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2010 by User:Studio Harcourt, as mentioned above). We will be able to undelete those after 95 + 1 years, so those from 1937 in 2033, from 1938 in 2034 etc. I'll add notes to those files which don't have a year (or a wrong year) in the file name.

During the COM:VPC discussions and before, a number of arguments came up claiming that these files were released under a free license or into the public domain, by the French state or by the "new" Studio Harcourt:

RAN claimed that the French state released them either under a CC license or into the public domain, but never came up with any proper evidence for those claims.

A VRT ticket ticket:2020112910005534 from the "new" Studio Harcourt has a statement from a woman named Agnes Brouard working for Studio Harcourt Paris and Chargée de la valorisation des collections, which basically claims that there are no patrimonial rights for all older Harcourt, which is saying that they are in the public domain. Some users, like User:Tisourcier (who uploaded many Harcourt photos) and User:Yann, think that is enough, that we should just rely on that statement and declare the photos to be in the public domain.
However, that contradicts the 2003 court case which found that the French state owned those rights. Even if the state had released them into the public domain since then, there is no statement whatsoever to that effect, on the contrary, the state routinely still claims a copyright for the photos.
As User:D. Benjamin Miller pointed out in the second COM:VPC discussion, 1) once the copyright had been transferred to the state, anything the "new" Studio Harcourt or one of its employees says is legally irrelevant, 2) the French government seems unlikely to have dedicated the copyrights to the public domain (it is, among other things, inconsistent with their copyright claims and their business of selling the photos online), and 3) the purpose of the VRT is to collect proof of permission from the copyright holder, not commentary from third parties (like the "new" Studio Harcourt).
As he puts it, "In short, these images are clearly not naturally in the public domain. We haven't seen any evidence of them having been dedicated to the public domain (as opposed to Brouard's hearsay), and all indications from state sources seem to indicdate that such a dedication is, at best, extremely unlikely. Especially in light of the active and explicit claims by the owner (as identified by a court in a lawsuit), we can't accept hearsay like Brouard's as evidence of a permission grant.
That's how I see it too; that VRT statement by a third party is not in any way an acceptable permission.

List of files

Files up to 1953

Files from 1954

Files from 1955 or later

File:CecileAubry-1952-Harcourt.png – actually 1955 per [20]
File:MarinaVlady-1955-Harcourt.png
File:PascalMazzotti-1954-Harcourt.png – actually 1955 per [21]
File:PierreDudan-1953-Harcourt.png – actually 1955 per [22]
File:Yvette Giraud par Le Studio Harcourt en 1950.jpg – actually 1955 per [23]
File:GeorgesGeret-1950-Harcourt.png – actually 1956 per [24]
File:Ingrid Bergman & Mel Ferrer dans Elena et les Hommes.jpg 1956
File:Bergman Harcourt 1957.jpg
File:Dietrich Harcourt 1938.jpg – actually 1959 per [25] and [26]
File:GeorgesUlmer-1953-Harcourt.png – actually 1959 per [27]
File:JPRambal-1953-Harcourt.png – actually 1959 per [28]
File:Clara Malraux.jpg 1960
File:GeorgesDelerue-1952-Harcourt.png – actually 1961 per [29]
File:JBalutin-1953-Harcourt.png – actually 1961 per [30]
File:René de Chambrun.jpg 1961
File:Caurat-1954-Harcourt.png – actually 1962 per [31]
File:ChristianeMinazzoli-1953-Harcourt.jpg – actually 1962 per [32]
File:Victor Lanoux, 1962, Studio Harcourt.jpg
File:JeanLefebvre-1953-Harcourt.png – actually 1963 per [33]
File:JeanPierreMarielle-1953-Harcourt.png – actually 1963 per [34]
File:René de Castries.jpg 1964
File:René de La Croix de Castries (cropped).jpg 1964
File:Général Alain de Boissieu, Compagnon de la Libération et gendre du général de Gaulle, grand chancelier de la Légion d'honneur.jpg 1965
File:Aymar Achille-Fould.jpg 1966
File:Charles de Chambrun, secrétaire d'État.jpg 1966
File:Michel Galabru, 1966, Studio Harcourt.jpg
File:Albert Cohen BNF (cropped).jpg 1968
File:Albert Cohen BNF (cropped2).jpg 1968
File:Albert Cohen BNF.jpg 1968
File:Philippine Leroy-Beaulieu.jpg 1988
File:Nathalie Chaize.jpg 2009
File:ELBAZ-PP-LC-2011.jpg 2011
File:DUVIVIER-PP-MB-6790-PS-V 2-LOGO.jpg 2013
File:Jacques Trorial.jpg 2017
File:Patrick M. Aubert.jpg 2017
File:Michel Franck 2018.jpg 2018
File:Portrait de Laurent Iskenderian.jpg 2019
File:Steve Abadie Rosier.jpg 2022

Files with just estimates, dubious dates etc.

File:René Dussaud (1868-1958) portrait by Harcourt Studio.jpg claimed to be from ca. 1920, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934, René Dussaud died in 1958
File:René Dussaud (1868-1958) portrait.jpg claimed to be from ca. 1920, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934, René Dussaud died in 1958
File:Serge-Heftler-Louiche HARCOURT.jpg claimed to be from 1929, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 – Yann: claimed to be from 1929, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 PD-1996
File:A Cotton Photograph by Studio Harcourt Wellcome V0026218 (retouched).jpg not dated, A. Cotton died in 1951 – Yann: before 1930, A. Cotton died in 1951 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:A. Cotton. Photograph by Studio Harcourt. Wellcome V0026218.jpg not dated, A. Cotton died in 1951 – Yann: before 1930, A. Cotton died in 1951 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:Gravier Harcourt.jpg not dated, Charles Joseph Gravier died in 1937 – Yann: before 1930, Charles Joseph Gravier died in 1937 PD-1996
File:Jeanne Lanvin Harcourt.jpg not dated, Jeanne Lanvin died in 1946 – Yann: 1930?, Jeanne Lanvin died in 1946 PD-1996
File:Jouve Harcourt.jpg claimed to be from 1930, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 – Yann: claimed to be from 1930, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 PD-1996
File:Maurice D'Ocagne. Photograph by Harcourt. Wellcome V0028179.jpg not dated, Maurice d'Ocagne died in 1938 – Yann: ca. 1930, Maurice d'Ocagne died in 1938 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:Portraits d'Arletty actrice, btv1b10335797n.jpg not dated, Arletty lived 1898–1992 – Yann: early 1930s, Arletty lived 1898–1992 PD-1996 public domain at source
File:Gruvel Harcourt.jpg not dated, Jean Abel Gruvel died in 1941 – Yann: ca. 1935, Jean Abel Gruvel died in 1941 PD-1996
File:Irene Joliot-Curie. Photograph by Wellcome V0028146.jpg not dated, Irène Joliot-Curie died in 1956 – Yann: 1935, Irène Joliot-Curie died in 1956 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, Duc de Broglie. Photograph by H Wellcome V0028118.jpg not dated, Louis de Broglie died in 1987 – Yann: ca. 1935, Louis de Broglie died in 1987 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:Madeleine Briny.jpg not dated, Madeleine Briny lived 1915–2007 – Yann: ca. 1935, Madeleine Briny lived 1915–2007 PD-1996
File:Madeleine Lamberet Harcourt.jpg claimed to be from ca. 1930, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 – Yann: ca. 1935 PD-1996
File:Madeleine Renaud.png not dated, guessed to be from ca. 1945 – Yann: ca. 1935 PD-1996
File:Maurice de Broglie.jpg not dated, Maurice de Broglie died in 1960 – Yann: ca. 1935, Maurice de Broglie died in 1960 PD-1996
File:Paul Lemoine (géologue).png not dated, Paul Lemoine died in 1940 – Yann: ca. 1935, Paul Lemoine died in 1940 PD-1996
File:Dalio-1937-Harcourt.png – online source [35] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Mallet-Beatrice 1937.webp – not dated at source [36]
File:MillyMathis-Harcourt-1937.png – not dated at source [37]
File:Vaillant-Couturier Harcourt.jpg not dated, Paul Vaillant-Couturier died in 1937
File:AndreBervil-1938-Harcourt-.png – dated ca. 1940 at source [38]
File:GabrielGabrio-1938.png – not dated at source [39]
File:LouisDucreux-1938-Harcourt.png – dated ca. 1945 at source [40]
File:MaryMarquet-1938-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [41]
File:Micheau Harcourt 1938.jpg – ca. 1938 at source [42]
File:Paul Valéry by the Studio Harcourt.jpg ca. 1938
File:Paul Verschave by Studio Harcourt.jpg ca. 1938
File:Paul Verschave (Studio Harcourt).jpg ca. 1938
File:Perdrière Harcourt 1938.jpg – ca. 1938 at source [43]
File:Perdrière Harcourt 1938b.jpg – ca. 1938 at source [44]
File:Photo Yvonne Baratte (1910-1945).jpg 1938 – source is scan by uploader, no way to check the date
File:SachaGuitry-1938-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [45]
File:Sorel Harcourt 1938.jpg – ca. 1938 at source [46]
File:Alfa Harcourt 1939.jpg – ca. 1939 at source [47]
File:Michèle Alfa in 1939 (cropped).jpg – ca. 1939 at source [48]
File:Cariven 1939.jpg – ca. 1939 per source [49]
File:Demazis Harcourt 1939 2.jpg – ca. 1939 per [50]
File:Demazis Harcourt 1939 2.png – ca. 1939 per [51]
File:DjangoReinhardt-1939-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [52]
File:Raimu-1939-Harcourt.png – online source [53] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Désiré Bois (1856-1946) by Studio Harcourt.jpg not dated, Désiré Georges Jean Marie Bois died in 1946 – Yann: 1930s, Désiré Georges Jean Marie Bois died in 1946 PD-1996
File:Jo Bouillon - photo Studio Harcourt.jpg 1930s – Yann: 1930s PD-1996
File:Lafont Harcourt.jpg not dated, Ernest Lafont died in 1946 – Yann: 1930s, Ernest Lafont died in 1946 PD-1996
File:Pierre Masse - Studio Harcourt.jpg not dated, guessed to be from the 1930s, Pierre Masse died in 1942 – Yann: ca. 1935, Pierre Masse died in 1942 PD-1996
File:AlfredAdam-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [54], also unclear if this is actually a Harcourt photo
File:Camille Arambourg Harcourt.jpg ca. 1940
File:Charpin-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [55]
File:Daniel Dousset.jpg ca. 1940
File:Doumel-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [56]
File:HenriNassiet-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [57]
File:Irène Popard - Studio Harcourt - circa 1940.jpg
File:Jean Noblet.jpg ca. 1940
File:PhilippeDumat-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [58]
File:RaymondLegrand-1940.png – not dated at source [59]
File:RobertVattier-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [60]
File:Richard-Wilms Harcourt 1941.jpg – ca. 1941 per [61]
File:Saint Cyr Harcourt 1941.jpg – ca. 1941 per [62]
File:Marais Harcourt 1942.jpg – dated 1941-1942 at [63]
File:André De Gelas.jpg ca. 1942
File:AndreDeGelas-1942-Harcourt.png – dated ca. 1942 at source file File:André De Gelas.jpg
File:Reda Caire par le Studio Harcourt en 1942.jpg – not dated at source [64]
File:Rellys-1942-Harcourt.jpg – not dated at source [65]
File:1943-05 Cristobal - Théâtre Montparnasse.jpg – source is just Collection personnelle de René Arrieu, no online source to check the date
File:Pierry Harcourt 1943.jpg – ca. 1943 per [66]
File:Agnès de La Barre de Nanteuil (1922-1944) (cropped).jpg not dated, Agnès de La Barre de Nanteuil died in 1944
File:Agnès de La Barre de Nanteuil (1922-1944).jpg not dated, Agnès de La Barre de Nanteuil died in 1944
File:Django Reinhardt par le Studio Harcourt (1944).jpg – not dated at source [67]
File:Django Reinhardt par le Studio Harcourt en 1944.jpg – not dated at source [68]
File:Arthur Chaussy.jpg not dated, Arthur Chaussy died in 1945
File:Ducaux Harcourt 1945.jpg – ca. 1945 per [69]
File:Robert-Hugues Lambert.jpeg not dated, Robert-Hugues Lambert died in 1945
File:Robert Salmon.jpg 1945 – not dated at source [70]
File:Portrait Gaston Suisse Harcourt.jpg 1945 – not dated at source [71]
File:SuzyDelair-1945-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [72]
File:Edith Piaf Harcourt 1950 4.jpg – vers 1946 at [73]
File:Bernard Harcourt.jpg not dated, Tristan Bernard died in 1947
File:Alain de Sérigny.jpg 1948 – source is just Amazon, no online source to check the date
File:Blier-1948-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [74]
File:Lise Topart en 1948.jpg – source is just Archives familiales, no online source to check the date
File:Raymond-Cordy-1948-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [75]
File:Geneviève Prigent.jpg not dated, Geneviève Prigent lived 1919–1990 – Yann: 1940s, Geneviève Prigent lived 1919–1990
File:Gisèle khun Pianiste.jpg not dated, Gisèle Kuhn lived 1910–1996 – Yann: 1940s, Gisèle Kuhn lived 1910–1996
File:Micheline Presle - Studio Harcourt.jpg 1940s
File:Theodore Besterman psychical researcher.png 1940s
File:Georges de Chassey.jpg not dated, Georges de Chassey died in 1990 – Yann: between 1945 and 1950, Georges de Chassey died in 1990
File:AndreRoussin-1949-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [76]
File:Bertrand d'Aramon.jpg not dated, Bertrand de Sauvan d'Aramon died in 1949
File:Fernandel-1949.jpg – ca. 1949 per [77]
File:MicheleCordoue-1949-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [78]
File:RaymondSouplex-1949-Harcourt.png – online source [79] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Portrait of Emperor Bảo Đại, Harcourt Paris.jpg ca. 1949/1950
File:Andrex-1950-Harcourt.png – online source [80] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Portrait de Louis-Paul Aujoulat.jpg ca. 1950
File:Caccia-Harcourt-1950-Harcourt.jpg – not dated at source [81]
File:Cosette Harcourt 1950.jpg – not dated at [82]
File:Cosette Harcourt.jpg 1950 – not dated at [83]
File:DominiqueDavray-1950-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [84]
File:Edmond Giscard d'Estaing.jpg not dated, Edmond Giscard d’Estaing died in 1982 – Yann: ca. 1950, Edmond Giscard d’Estaing died in 1982
File:Emile Rivalier. Photograph by Harcourt, Paris. Wellcome V0027577.jpg not dated, Émile Rivalier died in 1979 – Yann: ca. 1950, Émile Rivalier died in 1979 Free license at source
File:Félix Raugel Harcourt.jpg ca. 1950
File:Jacques Lohmüller.jpg ca. 1950
File:JacquesMorel-1950-Harcourt.jpg - not dated at source [85]
File:JeannetteBatti-1950-Harcourt.png – vers 1950 at source [86]
File:Marcel Vaucel.jpg not dated, guessed to be from ca. 1950
File:NoelNoel-1950-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [87]
File:Paul Mazon.jpg 1950 – source is just Archive familiale Mazon, no online source to check the date
File:Prof. F. Piéchaud.jpg 1950 – source is just Documents, no online source to check the date
File:Raymond Triboulet.jpg ca. 1950
File:ReneSarvil-1950-Harcourt.png – online source [88] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Robert Lamoureux 1950.jpg – vers 1950 at source [89]
File:Denys-deLaPatelliere-1951-Harcourt.png – not dated at [90], not a Harcourt photo, photographer is Sam Lévin (1904–1992)
File:Paul Préboist Studio Harcourt.jpg 1940s or 1950s
File:C-Duvaleix-Harcourt-1952.jpg – not dated at source [91] and at [92]
File:DarioMoreno-Harcourt-1952.jpg – not dated at source [93]
File:FernandSardou-1952-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [94]
File:JeanneMoreau-1952-Harcourt. original.webp – vers 1952 at source [95]
File:Maillan-Harcourt-1952.png – online source [96] is dead, no way to check the date
File:RobertDalban-1952-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [97]
File:Perier-Harcourt-1952.jpg – not dated at source [98]
File:AnnieCordy-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at [99] and [100]
File:DeFunes-1953-Harcourt.jpg – online source [101] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Édouard Corniglion-Molinier.jpg ca. 1953
File:JacquesFabbri-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [102]; unclear if this is even a Studio Harcourt photograph
File:JacquesJouanneau-1953-Harcourt.jpg – not dated at source [103]
File:MartineCarol-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [104]
File:RogerPierre-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [105]
File:Claude Gensac Harcourt 1950s.jpg – not dated at source [106], from a 1954 publication
File:JacquelineHuet-1954-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [107]
File:JacquelineJoubert-1954-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [108]
File:JacquesCharrier-1954-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [109]
File:Darry Cowl, Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Francis Blanche, Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Geneviève Page - Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Guy Tréjan, Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Jacques Angelvin Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Jacques Benoit.jpg not dated, Jacques Benoit died in 1982 – Yann: 1950s, Jacques Benoit died in 1982
File:Jean Lescure Harcourt.jpg ca. 1950s
File:Leon NOEL (ambassadeur) - Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Yves Vincent Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Pierre Tornade Harcourt.jpg 1950s or 1960s
File:Jacques Chevalier Studio Harcourt.jpg 1960 – source is scan by uploader, no way to check the date
File:Jacques Chevalier, 1960, Studio Harcourt.jpg – source is scan by uploader, no way to check the date
File:Nicole Louvier.jpg ca. 1960
File:Stetten-Bernard Jean studio Harcourt.jpg ca. 1960
File:Hadamard retouched.jpg not dated, Jacques Hadamard died in 1963
File:Hadamard2.jpg not dated, Jacques Hadamard died in 1963
File:Louis Le Puloch.jpg 1960–1965
File:Claude Gensac Harcourt 1964.jpg – dated 1964 at [110], but unclear if this is actually a Harcourt photo
File:MaryMarquet-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [111], copy there was signed in 1965
File:Cardinal François Marty.jpg not dated, François Marty died in 1994 – Yann: 1960s, François Marty died in 1994
File:Claude Gensac Harcourt 2.jpg ca. 1960s
File:PaulAzais-1940-Harcourt.png – dated années 1960 at source [112]
File:André GUILLAUMIN MNHN.jpg not dated, André Guillaumin died in 1974
File:André GUILLAUMIN Studio Harcourt Paris.jpg not dated, André Guillaumin died in 1974
File:Explanation Help desk Despois.jpg not dated, Jean Despois died in 1978
File:WP André François-Poncet.jpg not dated, André François-Poncet died in 1978
File:Françoise Peyrol.jpg not dated, French soprano Françoise Peyrol was active from the 1970s

Rosenzweig τ 19:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Rosenzweig: this seems to be a batch of files that will have a wide range of undeletion dates. Since you have lumped them into one nomination, how do you propose to keep track of when each may be undeleted? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: By years. Most already have a year in the file name, I'm in the process of adding years to the others (in the list above) and will also add undeletion categories. --Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll put a ton of undeletion cats on this one DR? Not how I'd have done it, but I guess workable. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: We have several such DRs on the books already, it's working. I'm done adding the categories (for photos up to the 1960s) and also the years in the list for files which didn't already have them. The years are primarily pulled from the file description pages, I didn't check every original source (some are gone anyway, like Ebay listings). A rather large number of photos are said to be from 1950, which suggests to me that there was a lot of guessing going on. Several photos are from later than 1953 and therefore not even in the PD in France, and some are even from the 2010s and 2020s, decades away from the end of the French 70 year term. --Rosenzweig τ 21:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few files which are {{PD-1996}} (noted above), they should be withdrawn from this DR. Also what about files which have a free license at source, i.e. File:Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, Duc de Broglie. Photograph by H Wellcome V0028118.jpg? Yann (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate any images which were clearly from before 1937, and only those are the ones which are definitely PD-1996. If a photo is said to be from the 1930s, that could be anything from 1930 to 1939, so not clearly PD-1996. Also, some were claimed to be from before 1934, which is hardly conceivable to be true when the studio was only founded in 1934. So the dates for those should be discussed and further investigated. As for the Wellcome Images, in 2014 or so they claimed all of their file were under a CC license, even images from the 1600s. If you look at the sources now, you'll see they claim that images are in the public domain (PD mark), but usually without saying why that should be the case. That applies to the Duc de Broglie photo you mentioned. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems there are pictures from before the creation of Harcourt in 1934, i.e. File:Serge-Heftler-Louiche HARCOURT.jpg. Yann (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I wrote above. Either those are Harcourt photos, then they can't be from before 1934. Or they are not Harcourt photos (maybe just the logo was added later), then they are not collective works and might still be protected in France. --Rosenzweig τ 22:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the explanation in File:Serge-Heftler-Louiche HARCOURT.jpg? These are {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} anyway. Yann (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it, people adding their earlier works to the new Studio Harcourt firm. The problem is, of the people mentioned there, the Lacroix brothers were publishers, and Robert Ricci was a business guy, they were not photographers. fr:Cosette Harcourt (1900–1976) was the only photographer in that group, and it looks like she had her first own studio in 1933 and was active as a salesperson for other studios before that. So the 1929 date seems rather doubtful. Unless we know about first publication, we don't know if "no author disclosure" actually applies or if it is a work by Cosette Harcourt. Or maybe even someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 22:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Wellcome could license public domain pictures under a free license. I have reviewed many files from them, and AFAIK, it is always the case. If you zoom in File:A. Cotton. Photograph by Studio Harcourt. Wellcome V0026218.jpg, it is clear that the Harcourt signature was added later. Yann (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see that Harcourt "sticker" in other images too. Wellcome still does not explain why the images would be in the PD. That would be obvious for images from the 1600s, but not for images from the 1930s or 1940s. --Rosenzweig τ 22:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Ten of) thousands of files were uploaded from Wellcome. Why focusing on Harcourt? I also found a file copied from Gallica, where it is said to be in the public domain. We usually trust GLAMs regarding licenses. Again, why focusing on Harcourt? The more I look at it, the more I think this is a very bad DR. For URAA issues, YOU have to prove that the files are affected, not the opposite. Yann (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: There were several files from Gallica, like File:Albert Duvaleix by Harcourt 1938.jpg. For that photo, the BNF currently states « Droits : Consultable en ligne » when viewing the page in French, “Rights : Public domain” when viewing the page in English, and there is no rights statement when viewing the page in German or other languages. We discussed this last year when discussing the Gallica license tags and agreed that any such statements by the BNF are not worth much, so the tags were deprecated.

As for Wellcome, “Why focusing on Harcourt?” Simple: Because this deletion request is only about photos from Studio Harcourt categories. I have discussed Wellcome images in other deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edmond Sergent. Photograph by Genia Reinberg. Wellcome V0028022.jpg, where I have expressed doubts about the validity of their CC licenses as well. “We usually trust GLAMs regarding licenses”: If they are plausible. If not, they can certainly be questioned. We have deleted files uploaded by the Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) in 2008 because they showed artwork which we considered was not covered by the free license we had for the photo. And as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "August Rupp" which I started, the Swiss National Library conceded that I was right and the photos were still protected, and decided to remove the files from their web site until they are actually in the public domain in 2029.

As for URAA deletion requests, you have it wrong, there is no need to “prove” that files are affected. Per Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, it's the same significant doubt standard we generally use: “If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.” And I think I've demonstrated clearly enough that there is significant doubt here.

For one file, File:Irene Joliot-Curie. Photograph by Wellcome V0028146.jpg, I noticed that the right part of that file, showing Irène Joliot-Curie, was published in France in 1936 (File:Le Petit journal illustré Joliot Curie.jpg), so that part indeed does qualify for PD-1996. What about the other part showing her husband Frédéric Joliot-Curie? Do we have any precise year for that photo? --Rosenzweig τ 17:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I have restored some original comments with dates (which were taken from the image descriptions) and added your comment/estimates immediately behind them. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne comprends pas cet acharnement sur les photos du studio Harcourt. Le studio nous a officiellement cédé une partie de leur fond. Pourquoi aller leur chercher des poux sur le fait qu'ils auraient eu raison ou tort de le faire. En vertu de quelle connaissance juridique intervenez-vous? Avez-vous eu des plaintes venant des supposés ayant droits sur l'utilisation de ces photos? N'êtes vous pas en train d'inventer des règles de lois en fonction de votre subjectivité?

En lisant (hélas en anglais) les pages Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/07#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt, Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992), je m'aperçois que ce combat de suppression est mené par user:Rosenzweig. Son acharnement, sa meilleure connaissance de l'anglais que moi rend l'échange très inégal. Le bon sens voudrait qu'on fasse confiance au ticket OTRS et qu'on ne réagisse QUE SI un cabinet de juriste exige la suppression de ces photos.

( In poor english Why are you so determinate about the deletion of pictures given by Studio Harcourt. Did Wikicommons receive complaints from somebody?. Are you a lawer ? May be you are making up rules that dont apply in those circumstances. user:Rosenzweig, who is the contributor who is fighting the most, is more concerned, more english fluent than me. The discussion is not fair. Common sense would be to trust OTRS and delete ONLY IF we receive complaints.)

~~HB (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

@HB: “to trust OTRS”: There is no OTRS to trust here because there is no VRT ticket releasing any of these photos into the public domain, just a statement from a third party. “and delete ONLY IF we receive complaints”: That is not how Wikimedia Commons works, and it is not how Wikipedia works either. Per COM:CARES: “Wikimedia Commons respects copyright and licensing restrictions regardless of whether copyright holders care about enforcing them. Uploading non-free media with excuses such as "the author won't find out", "the author would be glad that we redistributed their work", or similar statements is not how things work on Wikimedia Commons. We take copyright seriously; any image or media with questionable authorship may get nominated for deletion, and media uploaded without proper permission or licensing information may be speedily deleted.” --Rosenzweig τ 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Après étude plus poussée, je ne trouve pas la situation suffisamment claire : le nouveau Studio Harcourt ne me semble pas avoir un quelconque droit sur les photos de l'ancien studio Harcourt et ne peut donc les déclarer dans le domaine public. Ce fonds, clichés et négatifs, avait été vendu à l'État avant la reprise de société[113]. La médiathèque du Patrimoine et de la photographe qui possède ce fonds (et les droit patrimoniaux afférents) n'est pas clair sur la mise à la disposition en libre de droit de ses photos. Je comprends donc les doutes émis par Rosenzweig et Günther Frager. et supprime mon premier avis. HB (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour à tou(te)s,

C'est bien de l'archarnement, infondé et en contradiction avec les éléments, références et données déjà fournis depuis des mois au cours des différents débats.

Avec bien d'autres contributeurs (et administrateurs) francophones et français, nous avons pu mettre en évidence non seulement que ces photos datant d'avant 1992 ont bien été déclarées libres de droits par une responsable du Studio Harcourt d'une part (ticket VTR) et également nous avons démontré que RMN / Ministère de la Culture n'a pas le droit de revendiquer ou réclamer aucun copyright, concernant les photographies du Studio Harcourt.

Enfin, la référence publiée par l'expert et historienne spécialiste du Studio Harcourt, Françoise Denoyelle établit clairement que "les photographies Harcourt ne s'inscrivent plus dans une démarche patrimoniale à partir de 1992 (Ref : page 112 de l'auvrage de Françoise Denoyelle : Studio Harcourt, 1934-2009, éditions Nicolas Chaudun, Paris, 2009, ISBN : 978-2-35039-081-9). Ce type d'agissement pour demander la suppression en masse, relève désormais de la désorganisation de l'encyclopédie et de Commons.

Traduction : This request is indeed relentless, unfounded and in contradiction with the elements, references and data already provided for months, during the various debates. With many other French-speaking and contributors (and administrators) in France, we were able to highlight not only that these photos dating from before 1992 were indeed declared royalty-free by a manager of Studio Harcourt on the one hand (VTR ticket) and also we demonstrated that RMN / Ministry of Culture does not have the right to claim or demand any copyright, concerning the photographs of Studio Harcourt. Finally, the reference published by the expert and historian specializing in Studio Harcourt, Françoise Denoyelle, clearly establishes that "Harcourt photographs are no longer part of a patrimonial issue from 1992 (Ref: page 112 of the work by Françoise Denoyelle: Studio Harcourt, 1934-2009, Nicolas Chaudun editions, Paris, 2009, ISBN: 978-2-35039-081-9).

This type of action to request mass deletion now amounts to the disorganization of the encyclopedia and Commons. Tisourcier (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 VRT statement by the employee of the "new", current Studio Harcourt is a statement by a third party. It is not a valid permission or release for the photos we are talking about. Neither is a statement by a photo historian in one of her books. On the other hand, we do have a court decision clearly stating that the photos are copyrighted with the copyright owned by the French state. A court decision does have legal significance. Third-party statements do not. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These point have also been allready treated there :

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Tisourcier concerning Studio Harcourt.

Why would we want to call into question what has already been settled? Tisourcier (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have new evidence and a more in-depth analysis of previous evidence. --Rosenzweig τ 16:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, the most important point that was "forgotten" in this Deletion request is to démonstrate that claims from RMN / Ministry of Culture are legally not relevant. On December 17, 2014, this official information report filed with the National Assembly under number 2474, publicly reveals that RMN (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Ministry of Culture) commits multiple copyfrauds and that it is appropriate to put an end to them (page 42, proposal No. 9 of the official national publication, here) https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/rap-info/i2474.pdf. Using only partial declaration during a procédure is not a valuable element of proof that they own any copyrith on these photographs. Finally, despite what is claimed, it is clearly demonstrated that Studio Harcourt was never put into liquidation but only placed in receivership (redressement judiciaire), which allowed its takeover by new investors. Tisourcier (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat here what User:D. Benjamin Miller wrote in one of the VPC threads about this matter: “[...] the French government has a business selling copyright licenses. And all the Harcourt images on the French government-affiliated websites contain claims that the French government owns the copyright. You are correct to say that the government often overstates its rights. Where images are, in fact, in the public domain, we can ignore these overstatements. But this is an instance where the images could only be in the public domain if the government, after purchasing the rights, explicitly disclaimed them — there has certainly been no natural expiration of copyright. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the government would have done this, as it's inconsistent with not only their current claims on these particular photos, but also with the fact that they have have a business doing photo licensing more generally. I cannot find any instance where the French government has made any similar donation. Additionally, the French lawsuit which refers to the government as the current owner of the copyrights implies that the photos were not in the public domain at that time — which this does not prove that this hasn't changed since, we have no evidence for that.” --Rosenzweig τ 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are several instances where the French authorities purchase works and copyright, and release these works in the public domain. We have examples on Commons: Category:Photographs by Fernand Michaud. Yann (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those photos, the BNF currently states: « Droits : conditions spécifiques d'utilisation (sous convention BnF-ADM-2019-099996-01) » That does not sound like “released into the public domain”, or it least it looks like they're trying try to retract any such dedication. --Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they may try to retract an earlier decision, but once in the public domain, they remain so. File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpg license was reviewed. Yann (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite several debates in which at least ten of us demonstrated on Commons that the photos from Studio Harcourt dating from before 1992 were indeed declared copyright free (with VTR ticket), two or three contributors are still trying to have them removed hundreds of these photos. This is akin to a partisan hunt whose aim we do not really understand, other than to continue a tiring battle. It is time to put an end to this action. Sincerely -- Adri08 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong. There is no VRT ticket releasing any of these photos into the public domain, just a statement from a third party. --Rosenzweig τ 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. There is a VTR authorisation, so these photographs are rightly included here. If you don't think so, that's fine. You should discuss the matter with the VTR team instead of disrupting Commons for your own personal argument, which is prohibited by the project. Your conviction carries little weight here. --Madelgarius (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong. As explained above, there is no VRT “authorization”, just a statement by a third party. --Rosenzweig τ 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Madelgarius The VRT permission is for a subset of the photographs only. Ruthven (msg) 05:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, je ne saisis toujours pas le problème concernant ces images. Il y a un ticket VTR valide (à moins que Commons ait décidé que les Tickets avaient une date de péremption, celui ci n'a pas été annulé) émanant d'une représentante identifiée du Studio Harcourt. D'autre part le jugement Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 4 février 2003, 2001/17786 date de 2003, soit sept ans avant le dépot de ces image sur Commons par @Studio Harcourt: . Il n'est pas cohérent de conclure sur le statut légal des ces images, d'après une jugement de 2003 antérieure aux dépots sur Commons. En plus le jugement ne concernait pas le droit des images, mais le droit des marques, sur une utilisation litigieuse du logo Studio Harcourt par une société de production de disques. Toutes les images proposées à la suppression datent d'avant le reprise du Studio. On est dans un cas similaire de non renouvellement de copyright, dans le droit américain. Et à ce que je sache, les images de la liste n'ont aucun rappoort avec le jugement du Tribunal de 2003, à moins que @Rosenzweig: nous précise dans la dite liste, celles qui seraient concernées par ce jugement ? Kirtap (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are confusing things here. This deletion request is not about the 100 files uploaded in 2010 by User:Studio Harcourt, but about several hundred earlier photographs which were (in 1989/1991) sold to the French state, including the patrimonial rights (copyrights). There is no VRT ticket releasing any of these photos (not uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt) into the public domain, just a statement from a third party. --Rosenzweig τ 15:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Un autre preuve démontrant que Le Studio Harcourt détient toujours les droits de ces archives photographiques : l'entreprise a elle-même créé un compte officiel sur Commons et a versé non seulement des photos datant d'après 1992 mais aussi d'avant cette période, en indiquant précisément le détenteur unique des droits : "Studio Harcourt“ et non pas la mention RMN / Ministère de la Culture.

Abel Gance photograpié en 1957 :

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GANCE_Abel-24x30-.jpg

Ce simple fichier vient en contradiction formelle avec la présente requête de suppression de masse.

Traduction :

Another proof that Le Studio Harcourt still holds the rights to these photographic archives: the company itself created an official account on Commons and uploaded not only photos dating from after 1992 but also from before that period, indicating precisely the sole rights holder: Studio Harcourt and not refering to any credit for RMN / Ministry of Culture.

Abel Gance photographed in 1957: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GANCE_Abel-24x30-.jpg

This simple file formally contradicts the present request for mass deletion. Tisourcier (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That they uploaded this 1957 photo (and at least one other from 1980) under a free Creative Commons license (not a public domain tag) is indeed strange and worth questioning. But such incidents are certainly not in any way “proof” that the current Studio Harcourt still holds the rights to the photo archives of the old Studio Harcourt. And if they indeed would still hold the rights, that certainly would be a reason to delete the files listed above. You are contradicting yourself by the way, here you are claiming that the current Studio Harcourt still holds the rights to the old photos, and just a few paragraphs above you are claiming that these very same photos are in the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I have a strange feeling of déjà vu. We're all losing our time discussing endlessly about these pictures and Studio Harcourt. No need to remind another time the same arguments, the previous comments do it better than me. The stubbornness of some editors is truly frightening, please focus on another topic. DarkVador79-UA (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. According to all given data and references. Tisourcier (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying we should even keep Harcourt photographs from 1968, 1988, 2017 and 2022 which are not even in the public domain in France? None of those were uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt by the way (none of the files in this deletion request were). --Rosenzweig τ 10:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Les contestations de la capacité des studios Harcourt à libérer les photos anciennes reposent sur des interprétations erronées.
- La première erreur est de raisonner en termes de copyright alors que ce terme n'a aucune portée juridique en France, où le droit d'auteur est divisé en 2 : droits patrimoniaux et droit moral. Seul le détenteur du droit moral, un droit imprescriptible et incessible, a cette possibilité. [114].
- Or des jugements en cour d'appel et en cassation en 2014 ont établi que le seul détenteur du droit moral était les studios Harcourt (et pas par exemple le photographe ayant pris des photos entre 1983 et 2008 pour lesquelles il réclamait des droits d'auteurs, impayés depuis 2006).
- La question est donc : quels "studios Harcourt" ? Certains prétendent que cela ne saurait être la société actuelle, parce qu'il y aurait eu une liquidation judiciaire en 1991/1992 et qu'il s'agirait d'un "tiers". Or c'est faux, comme l'atteste le greffe du TC (qui n'évoque même pas un redressement judiciaire) pour les "Studios photographiques Harcourt", créés en 1980, et dissous en 1991 : [115]. Par contre, il semble bien qu'il y ait eu une liquidation de la société d'origine en 1968. Peut-on en conclure que les studios actuels auraient perdu ce droit ? Bien malin qui saurait le dire, puisqu'il n'y a aucune jurisprudence sur ce sujet, le droit français considérant, en contradiction avec le jugement de 2014, que seules des personnes physiques peuvent disposer de ce droit moral. Beau sac de noeuds juridique, et il n'est pas certain que les contributeurs de Commons aient la capacité de juger un point qui ne pourrait être tranché que par la justice française, si jamais elle est appelée un jour à se prononcer sur ce point. Ce qui est pratiquement certain, par contre, c'est que ce droit moral n'appartient pas à l'Etat français, qui a acheté les négatifs (et qui selon certaines sources, serait détenteur des droits patrimoniaux au-delà de sa charge de gestion du fonds).
- Plutôt que de se livrer à des interprétations personnelles, il serait donc sage, jusqu'à contestation éventuelle, de s'en tenir aux déclarations du studio Harcourt (en la personne d'Agnes Brouard ) , déclaration conforme à l'analyse d'une historienne indiquant que ces photos étaient libres de droit.
- PD ou licence CC ? Ce point est en effet à clarifier, mais cela ne justifie pas une suppression.
translation DeepL : Challenges to the ability of the Harcourt studios to release old photographs are based on erroneous interpretations.
- The first error is to reason in terms of copyright, a term that has no legal scope in France, where author's rights are divided into 2 parts: patrimonial rights and moral rights. Only the holder of moral rights, which are imprescriptible and non-transferable, has this option. [116].
- However court of appeal and cassation rulings in 2014 established that the only holder of moral rights was Harcourt Studios (and not, for example, the photographer who took photos between 1983 and 2008 for which he claimed royalties, unpaid since 2006).
- The question is: which ‘Harcourt studios’? Some people claim that it could not be the current company, because its predecessor went into receivership in 1991/1992 and would be a ‘third party’. But this is not true, as the court registry (which does not even mention a receivership) attests for ‘Studios photographiques Harcourt’, created in 1980 and dissolved in 1991: (" ne possède pas, à notre connaissance, de Procédures Collectives"). However, it does appear that the original company was wound up in 1968. Does this mean that the current studios have lost this right? Hardly anyone can say, since there is no case law on the subject, and French law considers, in contradiction with the 2014 ruling, that only natural persons can have this moral right. This is quite a legal mess, and it is not certain that the Commons contributors have the capacity to rule on a point that can only be decided by the French courts, if they are ever called upon to rule on this point. What is almost certain, however, is that this moral right does not belong to the French State, which bought the negatives (and which, according to some sources, holds the economic rights beyond its responsibility for managing the collection).
- Rather than indulging in personal interpretations, it would therefore be wise, until an hypothetical dispute arises, to stick to the statements made by the Harcourt studio (in the person of Agnes Brouard), a statement that is consistent with the analysis of a historian indicating that these photos were free of copyright.
- PD or CC licence? This point should be clarified, but it does not justify deletion. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pa2chant.bis: You seem to be writing mostly about the moral right, which is roughly the right to be named and identified as the author of a work. But this deletion request is not about the moral right. It is about the economical (or patrimonial in French) rights and if the files can be “used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose” (Commons:Licensing). So most of what you wrote is not even relevant for the deletion request. And doing nothing based on the dubious 2020 statement (see above) unless and until a complaint comes is (see COM:CARES) NOT how Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia work. --Rosenzweig τ 17:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's you interpretation, not mine. I guess it was you who spoke about à 'third part' ? --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Seconding DarkVador79-UA here: the amount of time and efforts wasted on what mainly appears to be a personal argument spearheaded by a single person is staggering. Time to move on. --Alecto Chardon (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rappel : Concernant le ticket VRT (#2020112910005534 pour File:Marcel Vaucel.jpg), la déclaration de la directrice en charge de la valorisation des collections du Studio Harcourt, madame Agnes BROUARD, confirme clairement sans aucune ambiguité le statut libre de ces photos : « Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. » . (traduction : "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now the property of the Ministry of Culture, preserved by an entity called the Media Library of Architecture and Heritage and distributed by the RMN-Grand Palais photographic agency. This photographic collection is not subject to property rights, so anyone who has a portrait from the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet.". Tisourcier (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed anove (see the section about this 2020 statement), this is not in any way an acceptable permission, especially as it is not coming from the owner of the patrimonial rights (copyrights). It is just hearsay from a third party. --Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop to say that Studios Harcourt are a third party, as this idea is supported by false "facts", as explained below and as only french courts of justice are subject to rule on it. And please try to consider what people explain to you, that quite nobody agrees with what looks like more and more as a personnal fight. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the current Studio Harcourt is a third party. They are not the original company who sold the photos to the French state. They are a new company, established in 1992 (see [117]), which has bought the name and brand of the old Studio Harcourt. This was extensively discussed and demonstrated in the two threads at the Village Pump Copyright, linked at the beginning of the deletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 07:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig. Your point of view is wrong. According to French laws, only the "commercial exploitation" could be conceided to Ministry of Culture in this cas but never the "copyrights". RMC-Ministry of Culture is knowne as copyfraud maker for a long time. Constantly trying to repeat your same weak arguments that have already been questioned many times is not proof that your point of view is correct and valid. Tisourcier (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this is about the commercial exploitation, or patrimonial rights or however you want to call it. I don't think anybody here is trying to deny that a Studio Harcourt is still to be named as the author (moral rights). I've already discussed the "copyfraud" argument above. That they (the French state or one of its subdivisons) may overstate their rights in some cases does not mean that what they say is automatically wrong and the opposite is true. And we still have the 2003 court decision explicitly saying they do own those commercial rights. --Rosenzweig τ 10:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and previous discussions. There is evidence that the patrimonial rights were transferred to the French government when they acquired the negatives and there is no explicit evidence that the French government surrendered such patrimonial rights. The VRT ticket that is mentioned in discussions is from an employee of a company established after the transfer of patrimonial rights and therefore lacks any legal binding like normal VRT tickets where the copyright holders make a statement about their property. Günther Frager (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing markup

I see that a large number of files on this page have HTML comments along the lines of "1968 ok per [https://www.photo.rmn.fr/archive/08-539564-2C6NU0T5V7M1.html]". These are not visible when the page is displayed. They are not signed, and there is no indication of whether they represent a consensus decision on the particular photos in question or are just one person's opinion. Would someone please clarify the status of these before any action is taken on the basis of this DR? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all from me (and I can sign them if that is considered necessary). I noticed that the years in the file names were not always correct and proceeded to check them. 1968 ok per ... just means that the given source URL indeed says this photo is from 1968. If the year differs, I wrote something like "actually 1969 per ...". --Rosenzweig τ 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig:

So OK just means you've confirmed the year, not that it is "OK" to keep the file? You might word that differently.
Why is this all commented out? Either it's a useful part of the information on this page or it isn't. Leaving it so that it is only visible when editing the page seems to me like falling between two stools.

Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking several hundred files took a while, so the comments were useful to see what I had already checked. But I didn't want to clutter up the visible text, so I hid them. I'm done checking now, so I've chosen to remove the confusing hidden comments confirming the years. They're still accessible via the DR's version history if someone wants to look at the source links I used to check the years. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Procedural close as this includes files with 5 different situations:

Pre-1937 files which are in the public domain both in France and in USA.
Files from a free license or in the public domain at source (most from Wellcome). We usually trust GLAMs regarding licenses.
1937-1953 files. PD-France. You have to prove for each files that URAA applies, which can't obviously be done in a mass DR like this one.
1954-1991 files. These could be deleted if there is a consensus that the declaration by a person responsible for managing copyright is not sufficient.
1992-now. These should probably be deleted.

This is customary that mass deletion requests (impacting many files with different issues) should be avoided. --Yann (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt

This is an introductory text for the renomination of the files listed in the deletion request above, which Yann (despite being heavily involved in the discussion) closed as a "procedural close as this includes files with 5 different situations" (despite most of these being well sorted and categorized in the deletion request already). So now I am nominating the files again spread over six different deletion requests (which should all appear below this one).

I ask Yann to please refrain from closing any of these six and let another admin do it, and also not to do a "procedural close" again.

This DR is just for technical reasons (nomination with VFC) and for information. It can be closed when the six DRs below are closed as well. --Rosenzweig τ 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig, please explain what "(nomination with VFC)" means. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: See Help:VisualFileChange.js. --Rosenzweig τ 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LET. IT. GO. Cinemaniac86 (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The six follow-up DRs are:

I am certainly less involved than you here, so... For the record, I didn't upload any of these files. Yann (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt 1954 to 1991

These are 1954 to 1991 photos of the "old" Studio Harcourt, not uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt, but by several other users. They are not in the public domain in either France or the US, and the suppposed OTRS/VRT "permission" by Ms Brouard from the "new" studio Harcourt has no legal binding for these. As User:Günther Frager put it in the previous DR: "There is evidence that the patrimonial rights were transferred to the French government when they acquired the negatives and there is no explicit evidence that the French government surrendered such patrimonial rights. The VRT ticket that is mentioned in discussions is from an employee of a company established after the transfer of patrimonial rights and therefore lacks any legal binding like normal VRT tickets where the copyright holders make a statement about their property." --Rosenzweig τ 14:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of files

Discussion

Neutral I won't object to deletion if there is a consensus for that. Yann (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Images still protected by copyright in its country of origin. My full rationale is already included in the nomination. Günther Frager (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to several facts, all data and precise details allready given in those debates that demonstrate that Studio Harcourt liberate these rights (tocket VTR) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Studio_Harcourt. Tisourcier (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These files have been liberated by Studio Harcourt (see VTR ticket). --gpesenti (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep «suppposed OTRS/VRT "permission" by Ms Brouard from the "new" studio Harcourt has no legal binding for these» Sur quoi @Rosenzweig: s'appuie-t-il pour affirmer cela ? Est ce que Commons a annulé ce ticket VRT/OTRS ? Je n'ai pas vu dans les discussions précédentes, d'action annulant ces tickets. Est ce qu'un agent VRT pourrait confirmer ou infirmer les dire de Rosenzweig ? Les discussions à ce sujet sur le bulletin VRT [118] sont loin d’être aussi catégoriques, et portent surtout sur des nuances dans la traduction de la permission. Kirtap (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obvious case of copyfraud. --Guise (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ticket VRT valide, non contesté, non contestable. Pratique téméraire que cette enième procédure qui une nouvelle fois désorganise Commons pour une argumentation personnelle (erronée qui plus est). --Madelgarius (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again the French museum and government are taken in flagrant case of Copyfraud --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 16:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aucune raison que le ticket VRT parfaitement valide soit remis une fois de plus en question. – Jilucorg (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aucune raison pour que le ticket VRT soit contesté. Quel est l'objet non avouable de cet acharnement?--Adri08 (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt 1937 to 1953

These are 1937 to 1953 photos of the "old" Studio Harcourt, not uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt, but by several other users. As collective works (per the 2014 Harcourt court decision) which are over 70 years they are in the public domain in France. They are not in the public domain in the United States because of the URAA (France had a copyright term of 58 years and 120 days on the URAA date, 1996-01-01).

Yann claimed that "you have to prove for each files that URAA applies", which is not true. There is no need to “prove” that files are affected. Per Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, it's the same significant doubt standard we generally use: “If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.” And I think I've demonstrated clearly enough that there is significant doubt here.

The supposed OTRS/VRT "permission" by Ms Brouard from the "new" studio Harcourt has no legal binding for these. As User:Günther Frager put it in the previous DR: "There is evidence that the patrimonial rights were transferred to the French government when they acquired the negatives and there is no explicit evidence that the French government surrendered such patrimonial rights. The VRT ticket that is mentioned in discussions is from an employee of a company established after the transfer of patrimonial rights and therefore lacks any legal binding like normal VRT tickets where the copyright holders make a statement about their property." --Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of files

* File:Albert Duvaleix by Harcourt 1938.jpg

Discussion

Keep You didn't provide any evidence that your DR rationale applies. Yann (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have the years, usually from French state web sites, which were checked. These are studio photos, which usually means they were made for payment. By US standards (and the URAA is US copyright) selling photographic prints for money constitutes publication, at least for the years in question here. Studio Harcourt was initially founded to provide photos for magazines published by the Lacroix brothers, which means some (or even many) of these might have been published in magazines as well. As I pointed out above, for URAA it's the same significant doubt standard we generally use: “If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.” And I think I've demonstrated clearly enough that there is significant doubt here. --Rosenzweig τ 14:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My position regarding who is holder of the patrimonial rights is already stated in the nomination. There is no doubt all of them are published: most of them are available in the RMN website, and a handful are scan taken from the Internet. If the year stated on the photos is the first publication date, then the URAA rationale on this DR is accurate and there is no much of discussion. However, they are actually creation dates used as proxies for first publication dates. It is plausible that the images were first published many years after their creation. Note that the French state bought in July 1989 the Harcourt archives for the period 1934-1979 [119]. The purchase might be considered as publication. Under this assumption URAA doesn't apply, but the images would be actually copyrighted in France and the US (due to Berne Convention). If the purchase of the archives is not considered as publication, then it is important to recall French copyright for collective works: (a) 70 years since first publication provided it happens no more than 70 years after creation; or (b) 25 years since first publication provided the existence of the work is disclosed no more than 70 years after creation, see Intellectual Property Code Article L123-3. For many files it is easy to prove that these conditions are fulfilled. For example File:Suzy Delair par le Studio Harcourt en 1942.jpg was published in https://pop.culture.gouv.fr/notice/memoire/APU104287VE in 2010, 68 years after its creation. For older photos we may require to find out if they were disclosed on time, but it is unlikely that the French state didn't have an inventory of its patrimony between 1989 and 2007.

I think that the URAA rationale proposed by Rosenzweig using creation date as a proxy for first publication date is quite reasonable. They are photos of famous people that were likely published in ads, magazines, brochures, etc shortly after being taken. If evidence of first publication is required, then the only reasonable approach is using the date of first publication in https://photo.rmn.fr or https://pop.culture.gouv.fr. Some photos might be "rescued" from deletion, however most photo created after 1940 will be deleted with a later undeletion date (2081 vs 2035) and the same rationale should be applied in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt 1954 to 1991. Günther Frager (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Günther Frager: Isn't the 25 year term intended for collective works first disclosed/published more than 70 years after creation (instead of "no more than" as you wrote)? Kind of like the en:Publication right we can find in article L123-4 of the French IP code? --Rosenzweig τ 08:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: yes, it is the as L123-4 but applied to anonymous and collective works. The link I provided is the French IP code translated to English from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ an official website from the French government. It talks about both disclosure and publication so I didn't take them as synonyms. I'm quite likely getting lost in translation. The original text is:

Toutefois, lorsqu'une oeuvre pseudonyme, anonyme ou collective est divulguée à l'expiration de la période mentionnée à l'alinéa précédent, son propriétaire, par succession ou à d'autres titres, qui en effectue ou fait effectuer la publication jouit d'un droit exclusif de vingt-cinq années à compter du 1er janvier de l'année civile suivant celle de la publication.

A native for sure is more suited than me, to interpret the nuances of it and correct what I wrote:). Günther Frager (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That concerns unpublished works. For example, the manuscript of Paris in the Twentieth Century, a novel by Jules Verne was discovered and published in 1994. So it got a new copyright for 25 years, which expired on January 1st, 2020. Yann (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It is more lax than what I wrote. Any negative from Harcourt that was not published on the normal 70 years protection for collective works would have a 25 years protection if the French government publishes them afterwards. Regardless the publication date is 2005 or 2100. The US protection due to Berne would be restricted to the minimum of 95 ppa / 120 pca terms. Günther Frager (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Günther Frager: Actually, this was more about you writing "25 years since first publication provided the existence of the work is disclosed no more than 70 years after creation". I think it should be "25 years since first publication provided the existence of the work is disclosed more than 70 years after creation" (emphasis in bold by me). At least that's how I read the last section of L123-3. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood what was your point. The problem is that my initial interpretation was clearly wrong :) Günther Frager (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So to sum it up: Collective works in France get a period of protection of 70 years from first publication if first published within 70 years from their creation, or 25 years from first publication if first published more than 70 years after their creation. --Rosenzweig τ 11:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 25 years new copyright applies to all unpublished works IMO, not only to collective works. Yann (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the case, but L123-3 has it only for collective and anonymous/pseudonymous works. L123-4 about posthumous works probably covers the rest. --Rosenzweig τ 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we all agree on it and I think we should update Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France to make it explicit. The English and the French pages (and probably the rest) only talk about the "death of the author". Günther Frager (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed (struck) File:Albert Duvaleix by Harcourt 1938.jpg from this DR because it belongs in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt from sources which claim they are under a free license (where it is already listed). --Rosenzweig τ 22:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Yann and according to several facts, all data and precise details allready given in those debates : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Studio_Harcourt. Tisourcier (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Yann. --Guise (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed File:Anna Magnani 1950.jpg because it is not a Harcourt photo. The photographer is Clarke Henry (1918-1996), see source [120]. Günther Frager (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I deleted this one. Yann (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt claimed to be from before 1937

These are files either claimed or speculated to be from before 1937 (which, if this is correct and they are indeed photos by Studio Harcourt, would mean they are in the public domain in both France and the US).

Some are even claimed to be from before 1934, which is hard to believe since Studio Harcourt was founded in 1934. One of the photos ( File:Serge-Heftler-Louiche HARCOURT.jpg, claimed to be from 1929) has a claim that it was taken by one of the Harcourt founders before 1934 and brought to the new Studio Harcourt firm. The problem is, of the people mentioned there, the Lacroix brothers were publishers, and Robert Ricci was a business guy, they were not photographers. fr:Cosette Harcourt (1900–1976) was the only photographer in that group, and it looks like she had her first own studio in 1933 and was active as a salesperson for other studios before that. So the 1929 date seems rather doubtful. Unless we know about first publication, we don't know if "no author disclosure" (as claimed in the previous discussion) actually applies or if it is a work by Cosette Harcourt. Or maybe even someone else. If those photos are not true Harcourt photos, then they are not collective works and might still be protected in France.

Those from 1934 or later lack evidence that the years from which they are claimed to be are correct, we only have guesses and estimates. I do have my doubts about at least some of those. And if a photo is said to be from the 1930s, that could be anything from 1930 to 1939. So the dates for these files should be discussed and further investigated, and if there is no evidence that they are actually Harcourt photos from before 1937, they should be deleted per the precautionary principle.

The supposed OTRS/VRT "permission" by Ms Brouard from the "new" studio Harcourt has no legal binding for these. As User:Günther Frager put it in the previous DR: "There is evidence that the patrimonial rights were transferred to the French government when they acquired the negatives and there is no explicit evidence that the French government surrendered such patrimonial rights. The VRT ticket that is mentioned in discussions is from an employee of a company established after the transfer of patrimonial rights and therefore lacks any legal binding like normal VRT tickets where the copyright holders make a statement about their property." --Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of files

File:René Dussaud (1868-1958) portrait by Harcourt Studio.jpg claimed to be from ca. 1920, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934, immediate source is a 1939 publication, René Dussaud died in 1958
File:René Dussaud (1868-1958) portrait.jpg claimed to be from ca. 1920, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934, René Dussaud died in 1958
File:Serge-Heftler-Louiche HARCOURT.jpg claimed to be from 1929, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 – Yann: PD-1996
File:Gravier Harcourt.jpg not dated, Charles Joseph Gravier died in 1937 – Yann: PD-1996
File:Jeanne Lanvin Harcourt.jpg not dated, Jeanne Lanvin died in 1946 – Yann: 1930?, Jeanne Lanvin died in 1946 PD-1996
File:Jouve Harcourt.jpg claimed to be from 1930, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 – Yann: claimed to be from 1930, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 PD-1996
File:Gruvel Harcourt.jpg not dated, Jean Abel Gruvel died in 1941 – Yann: ca. 1935, Jean Abel Gruvel died in 1941 PD-1996
File:Madeleine Briny.jpg not dated, Madeleine Briny lived 1915–2007 – Yann: ca. 1935, Madeleine Briny lived 1915–2007 PD-1996
File:Madeleine Lamberet Harcourt.jpg claimed to be from ca. 1930, but Studio Harcourt was only founded in 1934 – Yann: ca. 1935 PD-1996
File:Madeleine Renaud.png not dated, guessed to be from ca. 1945 – Yann: ca. 1935 PD-1996
File:Maurice de Broglie.jpg not dated, Maurice de Broglie died in 1960 – Yann: ca. 1935, Maurice de Broglie died in 1960 PD-1996
File:Paul Lemoine (géologue).png not dated, Paul Lemoine died in 1940 – Yann: ca. 1935, Paul Lemoine died in 1940 PD-1996

Discussion

Keep All these files are PD-1996. Bad faith nomination. Yann (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these might indeed be PD-1996, but then they're probably also not Harcourt photos (so no collective works) and might still be protected in France. For others, the ca. 1935 estimates seem somewhat out of the blue. --Rosenzweig τ 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ca. 1920 date for the René Dussaud photo (version which was uploaded in 2020) came with this edit by RAN. The immediate source (at least for the other version uploaded in 2024) is a 1939 publication. --Rosenzweig τ 11:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[121] shows that he was elected to Secrétaire perpétuel de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres in 1937. So I fixed the date. Yann (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gruvel Harcourt.jpg uses the 49, avenue d'Iéna address. This is where the studio resided starting in 1938. I guess it's not impossible that the photo was taken earlier than that, but I'd still see that as some evidence that the photo is from 1938 or later. --Rosenzweig τ 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, File:Madeleine Briny.jpg uses the studio's initial 11 bis, rue Christophe-Colomb address, so it is from no later than 1938. Could be from any year in the period 1934 to 1938. --Rosenzweig τ 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Yann. --Guise (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt with just estimates or dubious dates after 1936

These are files where the years are just estimates. Depending on the correct year, they might be in the public domain in France (if they are Harcourt photos older than 70 years). They could be in the public domain in the US as well if they are Harcourt photos from before 1937, but we should have more than just a guess "1930s" for that.

The supposed OTRS/VRT "permission" by Ms Brouard from the "new" studio Harcourt has no legal binding for these. As User:Günther Frager put it in the previous DR: "There is evidence that the patrimonial rights were transferred to the French government when they acquired the negatives and there is no explicit evidence that the French government surrendered such patrimonial rights. The VRT ticket that is mentioned in discussions is from an employee of a company established after the transfer of patrimonial rights and therefore lacks any legal binding like normal VRT tickets where the copyright holders make a statement about their property." --Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of files

File:Dalio-1937-Harcourt.png – online source [122] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Mallet-Beatrice 1937.webp – not dated at source [123]
File:MillyMathis-Harcourt-1937.png – not dated at source [124]
File:Vaillant-Couturier Harcourt.jpg not dated, Paul Vaillant-Couturier died in 1937
File:AndreBervil-1938-Harcourt-.png – dated ca. 1940 at source [125]
File:GabrielGabrio-1938.png – not dated at source [126]
File:LouisDucreux-1938-Harcourt.png – dated ca. 1945 at source [127]
File:MaryMarquet-1938-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [128]
File:Micheau Harcourt 1938.jpg – ca. 1938 at source [129]
File:Paul Valéry by the Studio Harcourt.jpg ca. 1938
File:Paul Verschave by Studio Harcourt.jpg ca. 1938
File:Paul Verschave (Studio Harcourt).jpg ca. 1938
File:Perdrière Harcourt 1938.jpg – ca. 1938 at source [130]
File:Perdrière Harcourt 1938b.jpg – ca. 1938 at source [131]
File:Photo Yvonne Baratte (1910-1945).jpg 1938 – source is scan by uploader, no way to check the date
File:SachaGuitry-1938-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [132]
File:Sorel Harcourt 1938.jpg – ca. 1938 at source [133]
File:Alfa Harcourt 1939.jpg – ca. 1939 at source [134]
File:Michèle Alfa in 1939 (cropped).jpg – ca. 1939 at source [135]
File:Cariven 1939.jpg – ca. 1939 per source [136]
File:Demazis Harcourt 1939 2.jpg – ca. 1939 per [137]
File:Demazis Harcourt 1939 2.png – ca. 1939 per [138]
File:DjangoReinhardt-1939-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [139]
File:Raimu-1939-Harcourt.png – online source [140] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Désiré Bois (1856-1946) by Studio Harcourt.jpg not dated, Désiré Georges Jean Marie Bois died in 1946 – Yann: 1930s, Désiré Georges Jean Marie Bois died in 1946 PD-1996
File:Jo Bouillon - photo Studio Harcourt.jpg 1930s – Yann: 1930s PD-1996
File:Lafont Harcourt.jpg not dated, Ernest Lafont died in 1946 – Yann: 1930s, Ernest Lafont died in 1946 PD-1996
File:Pierre Masse - Studio Harcourt.jpg not dated, guessed to be from the 1930s, Pierre Masse died in 1942 – Yann: ca. 1935, Pierre Masse died in 1942 PD-1996
File:AlfredAdam-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [141], also unclear if this is actually a Harcourt photo
File:Camille Arambourg Harcourt.jpg ca. 1940
File:Charpin-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [142]
File:Daniel Dousset.jpg ca. 1940
File:Doumel-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [143]
File:HenriNassiet-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [144]
File:Irène Popard - Studio Harcourt - circa 1940.jpg
File:Jean Noblet.jpg ca. 1940
File:PhilippeDumat-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [145]
File:RaymondLegrand-1940.png – not dated at source [146]
File:RobertVattier-1940-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [147]
File:Richard-Wilms Harcourt 1941.jpg – ca. 1941 per [148]
File:Saint Cyr Harcourt 1941.jpg – ca. 1941 per [149]
File:Marais Harcourt 1942.jpg – dated 1941-1942 at [150]
File:André De Gelas.jpg ca. 1942
File:AndreDeGelas-1942-Harcourt.png – dated ca. 1942 at source file File:André De Gelas.jpg
File:Reda Caire par le Studio Harcourt en 1942.jpg – not dated at source [151]
File:Rellys-1942-Harcourt.jpg – not dated at source [152]
File:1943-05 Cristobal - Théâtre Montparnasse.jpg – source is just Collection personnelle de René Arrieu, no online source to check the date
File:Pierry Harcourt 1943.jpg – ca. 1943 per [153]
File:Agnès de La Barre de Nanteuil (1922-1944) (cropped).jpg not dated, Agnès de La Barre de Nanteuil died in 1944
File:Agnès de La Barre de Nanteuil (1922-1944).jpg not dated, Agnès de La Barre de Nanteuil died in 1944
File:Django Reinhardt par le Studio Harcourt (1944).jpg – not dated at source [154]
File:Django Reinhardt par le Studio Harcourt en 1944.jpg – not dated at source [155]
File:Arthur Chaussy.jpg not dated, Arthur Chaussy died in 1945
File:Ducaux Harcourt 1945.jpg – ca. 1945 per [156]
File:Robert-Hugues Lambert.jpeg not dated, Robert-Hugues Lambert died in 1945
File:Robert Salmon.jpg 1945 – not dated at source [157]
File:Portrait Gaston Suisse Harcourt.jpg 1945 – not dated at source [158]
File:SuzyDelair-1945-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [159]
File:Edith Piaf Harcourt 1950 4.jpg – vers 1946 at [160]
File:Bernard Harcourt.jpg not dated, Tristan Bernard died in 1947
File:Alain de Sérigny.jpg 1948 – source is just Amazon, no online source to check the date
File:Blier-1948-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [161]
File:Lise Topart en 1948.jpg – source is just Archives familiales, no online source to check the date
File:Raymond-Cordy-1948-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [162]
File:Geneviève Prigent.jpg not dated, Geneviève Prigent lived 1919–1990 – Yann: 1940s, Geneviève Prigent lived 1919–1990
File:Gisèle khun Pianiste.jpg not dated, Gisèle Kuhn lived 1910–1996 – Yann: 1940s, Gisèle Kuhn lived 1910–1996
File:Micheline Presle - Studio Harcourt.jpg 1940s
File:Theodore Besterman psychical researcher.png 1940s
File:Georges de Chassey.jpg not dated, Georges de Chassey died in 1990 – Yann: between 1945 and 1950, Georges de Chassey died in 1990
File:AndreRoussin-1949-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [163]
File:Bertrand d'Aramon.jpg not dated, Bertrand de Sauvan d'Aramon died in 1949
File:Fernandel-1949.jpg – ca. 1949 per [164]
File:MicheleCordoue-1949-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [165]
File:RaymondSouplex-1949-Harcourt.png – online source [166] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Portrait of Emperor Bảo Đại, Harcourt Paris.jpg ca. 1949/1950
File:Andrex-1950-Harcourt.png – online source [167] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Portrait de Louis-Paul Aujoulat.jpg ca. 1950
File:Caccia-Harcourt-1950-Harcourt.jpg – not dated at source [168]
File:Cosette Harcourt 1950.jpg – not dated at [169]
File:Cosette Harcourt.jpg 1950 – not dated at [170]
File:DominiqueDavray-1950-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [171]
File:Edmond Giscard d'Estaing.jpg not dated, Edmond Giscard d’Estaing died in 1982 – Yann: ca. 1950, Edmond Giscard d’Estaing died in 1982
File:Félix Raugel Harcourt.jpg ca. 1950
File:Jacques Lohmüller.jpg ca. 1950
File:JacquesMorel-1950-Harcourt.jpg - not dated at source [172]
File:JeannetteBatti-1950-Harcourt.png – vers 1950 at source [173]
File:Marcel Vaucel.jpg not dated, guessed to be from ca. 1950
File:NoelNoel-1950-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [174]
File:Paul Mazon.jpg 1950 – source is just Archive familiale Mazon, no online source to check the date
File:Prof. F. Piéchaud.jpg 1950 – source is just Documents, no online source to check the date
File:Raymond Triboulet.jpg ca. 1950
File:ReneSarvil-1950-Harcourt.png – online source [175] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Robert Lamoureux 1950.jpg – vers 1950 at source [176]
File:Paul Préboist Studio Harcourt.jpg 1940s or 1950s
File:C-Duvaleix-Harcourt-1952.jpg – not dated at source [177] and at [178]
File:DarioMoreno-Harcourt-1952.jpg – not dated at source [179]
File:FernandSardou-1952-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [180]
File:JeanneMoreau-1952-Harcourt. original.webp – vers 1952 at source [181]
File:Maillan-Harcourt-1952.png – online source [182] is dead, no way to check the date
File:RobertDalban-1952-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [183]
File:Perier-Harcourt-1952.jpg – not dated at source [184]
File:AnnieCordy-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at [185] and [186]
File:DeFunes-1953-Harcourt.jpg – online source [187] is dead, no way to check the date
File:Édouard Corniglion-Molinier.jpg ca. 1953
File:JacquesFabbri-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [188]; unclear if this is even a Studio Harcourt photograph
File:JacquesJouanneau-1953-Harcourt.jpg – not dated at source [189]
File:MartineCarol-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [190]
File:RogerPierre-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [191]
File:Claude Gensac Harcourt 1950s.jpg – not dated at source [192], from a 1954 publication
File:JacquelineHuet-1954-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [193]
File:JacquelineJoubert-1954-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [194]
File:JacquesCharrier-1954-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [195]
File:Darry Cowl, Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Francis Blanche, Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Geneviève Page - Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Guy Tréjan, Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Jacques Angelvin Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Jacques Benoit.jpg not dated, Jacques Benoit died in 1982 – Yann: 1950s, Jacques Benoit died in 1982
File:Jean Lescure Harcourt.jpg ca. 1950s
File:Leon NOEL (ambassadeur) - Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Yves Vincent Studio Harcourt.jpg 1950s
File:Pierre Tornade Harcourt.jpg 1950s or 1960s
File:Jacques Chevalier Studio Harcourt.jpg 1960 – source is scan by uploader, no way to check the date
File:Jacques Chevalier, 1960, Studio Harcourt.jpg – source is scan by uploader, no way to check the date
File:Nicole Louvier.jpg ca. 1960
File:Stetten-Bernard Jean studio Harcourt.jpg ca. 1960
File:Hadamard retouched.jpg not dated, Jacques Hadamard died in 1963
File:Hadamard2.jpg not dated, Jacques Hadamard died in 1963
File:Louis Le Puloch.jpg 1960–1965
File:MaryMarquet-1953-Harcourt.png – not dated at source [196], copy there was signed in 1965
File:Cardinal François Marty.jpg not dated, François Marty died in 1994 – Yann: 1960s, François Marty died in 1994
File:Claude Gensac Harcourt 2.jpg ca. 1960s
File:PaulAzais-1940-Harcourt.png – dated années 1960 at source [197]
File:André GUILLAUMIN MNHN.jpg not dated, André Guillaumin died in 1974
File:André GUILLAUMIN Studio Harcourt Paris.jpg not dated, André Guillaumin died in 1974
File:Explanation Help desk Despois.jpg not dated, Jean Despois died in 1978
File:WP André François-Poncet.jpg not dated, André François-Poncet died in 1978
File:Françoise Peyrol.jpg not dated, French soprano Françoise Peyrol was active from the 1970s

Discussion

Keep pre-1953 files. Bad faith nomination with mixed up rationale. Yann (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is starting to become a problem. This type of behaviour should now be penalised. You may think you're defending the project, but you're only defending the truncated image you have of it. It's time for you to move on to other things. --Madelgarius (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any arguments which are not ad hominem? --Rosenzweig τ 07:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not ad hominem. When will you recognize that you are waging a personal war against these files? Yann (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely ad hominem. An ad hominem argument isn't inherently a wrong one if (for example) the issue is that the rationale makes no sense and is a tit-for-tat but, yes, this is a statement about the person, not a refutation of any specific claim made in the rationale for deletion. @Yann and Madelgarius: you aren't even stating which of the premises you believe are false. Also: if you have a problem with Rosenzweig's conduct, certainly Yann you know as an admin that this is not the place to discuss it. Either bring it to a proper forum or drop it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably meant ad personam - see the French version on WP for the nuance, since in English this nuance has been around for decades (and by the way, a “decade” is ten days and a “decennium” is ten years). In short, the VTR ticket has never been contested (although this is the appropriate procedure) and is not contestable. Move along, there's nothing to see. --Madelgarius (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Admittedly I usually tend to air on the side of caution anyway. But I work in similar areas a lot and have read through every discussion related to this multiple times. So I think I'm at least able to have an opinion about it without people just claiming it's bad faithed or whatever. More to the point, I'm not so convinced that the dates really matter. As much as we can't figure out if a photograph was taken in 1936 or 1937 I don't think anyone else would be able to either. But I am in agreement with Rosenzweig that a random statement by an employee of the modern company has no legal standing what-so-ever.

The normal way to go about these things is through VRT tickets, which she obviously didn't do. There's no reason to give Studio Harcourt or one of their employees a special pass from following the normal process that literally everyone else has to follow either. Obviously it's a grey area, but that's exactly what the precautionary principle and VRT tickets exist for. "When in doubt delete" or whatever. Is anyone seriously going to say we know for sure what the copyright status of these files is? Come on. Not that I'm unsympathetic. It clearly sucks to delete images from such a prolific studio, but then DRs shouldn't be closed as keep purely because of emotional appeals either and I really don't see any other grounds for keeping the images. And again, I've read through all the discussions multiple times and have plenty of experience working in similar areas. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not disagreeing with the gist of that, but VRT is just a way of verifying who is saying something, and of having their words on file. It is not a unique way to do that. For example, a statement on a web site or social media page clearly under their control is just as good (and often saves a lot of work). VRT is particularly important when we need documents to back that up, which VRT can handle confidentially. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I understand with VRT is that all someone has to do is ask an uploader for it and then the files can be deleted if the uploader isn't willing to provide it. Ergo, really all Rosenzweig has to do here if they want to is ask the original uploader for VRT permission for all the files, which I assume they can't provide, and all the files will be deleted anyway right? At the end of the day I don't see what the difference between doing it this way or like that is. Both lead to the files being deleted. This just seems like the easier route of the two. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you are wrong. A supposed permission was provided via VRT. The question, as I understand it, is whether the person granting the permission was in a position to do so. As I understand it, they were from the present-day Studio Harcourt, which is a successor company after a bankruptcy. The dispute is whether that company owns the patrimonial rights for pre-bankruptcy Harcourt images. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know. From what it sounds like there's three separate things here. 1. Images that are owned by the modern company, which would be fine. 2. One's supposedly owned by the government archive, which are less clear 3. Random images that don't have clear rights holders or origins, which are also less clear. The problem seems to be that they all have VRT permission when it's not valid in most cases. I don't know what the answer to that is either except for asking Studio Harcourt to refile VRT permission based on a higher standard of evidence for each individual file. The ones unclear ownership and/or publication dates and/or origins clearly shouldn't be hosted on Commons though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we have regarding the files in this deletion request (from 1937 to ca. the 1970s) is not a proper permission (of the I hereby affirm ... type or similar as outlined at COM:VRT), but just a statement, a claim by an employee of the current Harcourt company that there are no patrimonial rights (economical rights, copyrights) for the old Harcourt photographs (which were sold to the French state). There is a separate (older) VRT ticket for the files in Category:Uploads by User:Studio Harcourt, most of which are from the 2000s. Those 100 files, which were uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt (as the category name says) in 2010, are not subject to any deletion request. From what I gather, the older VRT ticket actually does have a proper and valid permission for those 100 files. Though at least one, from 1957, is somewhat questionable. But even that one file is not subject to any deletion request right now. --Rosenzweig τ 06:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Yann and according to several facts, all data and precise details allready given in those debates : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Studio_Harcourt. Tisourcier (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Yann. --Guise (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is enough evidence that the French Ministry of Culture has the patrimonial rights, I refer to the other DRs as it would be tiring to repeat the same discussion. Depending on the date of publication the resolution is either URAA restoration or French copyvio in both cases the undeletion date would be based on US term (95 years ppa). The singularity of these files is that the dates are not exact. Some have an approximate date on the sources and other were made up by the uploaders. We can only keep images when there is reasonable evidence that they were published before 1938. Notice that the photos from RMN are negatives, so unless there is an explicit proof of first publication, we can only assume that the first date of publication was made after the French government purchased the archives. Günther Frager (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt from sources which claim they are under a free license

These are photos either taken from the Wellcome web site or from Gallica, the web site of the French National library. Yann says that “We usually trust GLAMs regarding licenses”. To which I respond: If they are plausible. If not, they can certainly be questioned. We have deleted files uploaded by the Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) in 2008 because they showed artwork which we considered was not covered by the free license we had for the photo. And as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "August Rupp" which I started, the Swiss National Library conceded that I was right and the photos were still protected, and decided to remove the files from their web site until they are actually in the public domain in 2029.

When Wellcome first released their files online in 2014, they claimed they were all under a free (Creative Commons) license, even images from the 1600s. If you look at the sources now, you'll see they claim that the images are in the public domain (PD mark), but usually without saying why that should be the case. That would be obvious for images from the 1600s, but not for images from the 1930s or 1940s.

For the files taken from Gallica, the BNF currently states « Droits : Consultable en ligne » when viewing the page in French, “Rights : Public domain” when viewing the page in English, and there is no rights statement when viewing the page in German or other languages. We discussed this last year when discussing the Gallica license tags and agreed that any such statements by the BNF are not worth much, so the tags were deprecated.

For these files from both sources, we have no plausible explanation why they should be under a free license (Wellcome 2014) or in the public domain (Wellcome 2024, Gallica a few years ago and still in 2024 when viewing their pages in English). If we find some evidence for photo dates before 1937, those files could be in the public domain in both France and the US. I do have my doubts about some estimates, like the Arletty photo which Yann thinks is from the early 1930s, but which looks more like 1940 to me after comparing it to other Arletty photos.

For one file, File:Irene Joliot-Curie. Photograph by Wellcome V0028146.jpg, I noticed that the right part of that file, showing Irène Joliot-Curie, was published in France in 1936 (File:Le Petit journal illustré Joliot Curie.jpg), so that part indeed does qualify for PD-1996. What about the other part showing her husband Frédéric Joliot-Curie? Do we have any precise year for that photo?

The supposed OTRS/VRT "permission" by Ms Brouard from the "new" studio Harcourt has no legal binding for these. As User:Günther Frager put it in the previous DR: "There is evidence that the patrimonial rights were transferred to the French government when they acquired the negatives and there is no explicit evidence that the French government surrendered such patrimonial rights. The VRT ticket that is mentioned in discussions is from an employee of a company established after the transfer of patrimonial rights and therefore lacks any legal binding like normal VRT tickets where the copyright holders make a statement about their property." --Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Yann and according to several facts, all data and precise details allready given in those debates : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Studio_Harcourt. Tisourcier (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of files

Wellcome

File:A Cotton Photograph by Studio Harcourt Wellcome V0026218 (retouched).jpg not dated, A. Cotton died in 1951 – Yann: before 1930, A. Cotton died in 1951 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:A. Cotton. Photograph by Studio Harcourt. Wellcome V0026218.jpg not dated, A. Cotton died in 1951 – Yann: before 1930, A. Cotton died in 1951 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:Emile Rivalier. Photograph by Harcourt, Paris. Wellcome V0027577.jpg not dated, Émile Rivalier died in 1979 – Yann: ca. 1950, Émile Rivalier died in 1979 Free license at source
File:Irene Joliot-Curie. Photograph by Wellcome V0028146.jpg not dated, Irène Joliot-Curie died in 1956 – Yann: 1935, Irène Joliot-Curie died in 1956 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, Duc de Broglie. Photograph by H Wellcome V0028118.jpg not dated, Louis de Broglie died in 1987 – Yann: ca. 1935, Louis de Broglie died in 1987 PD-1996 Free license at source
File:Maurice D'Ocagne. Photograph by Harcourt. Wellcome V0028179.jpg not dated, Maurice d'Ocagne died in 1938 – Yann: ca. 1930, Maurice d'Ocagne died in 1938 PD-1996 Free license at source

Gallica / Retronews

* File:Charles Dullin, L'Avare, 1944.jpg moved to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt 1937 to 1953, not from Gallica

Discussion

Keep Bad faith nomination. Some files are PD-1996, and for others, you didn't give any evidence that your rationale applies. Yann (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that any of these are PD-1996 (as you claim) either. Many of these were not all dated, and the "ca. 1935" you did are somewhat out of the blue. Why not 1937 instead of 1935? --Rosenzweig τ 14:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do we know anything about Wellcome's rationale for saying theirs are PD? If not, has anyone attempted to contact them about it? - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not contacted them. And I have not seen any rationale from them why any image should be in the public domain, they just say "Licence: Public Domain Mark" for every image I have seen. Just like they said in 2014 "Copyrighted work available under Creative Commons Attribution only licence CC BY 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" for every image I have seen (it's still in the metadata of the Wellcome files that were transferred then). My guess is that they wanted to share their images freely and chose the CC license for that. Then at one point they realized (or were told) that most of the old images they had (paintings, drawings, photos) were likely in the public domain and switched to the PD mark because of that. I don't think that they thoroughly checked each file. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edmond Sergent. Photograph by Genia Reinberg. Wellcome V0028022.jpg, where the death date (1968) of the photographer was not generally known until recently. If you don't know the death date of a photographer active until the 1930s, how can you declare that her work is in the public domain? My assumption is that they just did not check the details of each file and operated under a "probably old enough" principle. --Rosenzweig τ 06:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, their collection is a big mixture loosely connected by subject (medicine), not provenance. We have files from other collections which are a result of an archive/library/museum taking over the estate of an artist or photographer. In those cases, it is entirely plausible (or sometimes even explicitly mentioned) that they also acquired the rights to the works, enabling them to release the works under a free license or into the public domain. From what I gathered, the Wellcome collection was not built like that. At least it is entirely implausible that they acquired rights to Harcourt photographs, given that we know quite a lot about the legal history of that studio. If we find some evidence that any of the undated Harcourt photos from Wellcome are actually from before 1937, we might still come to the conclusion that they are in the public domain in both France and the US. But I'd like a bit more than just estimates without telling any context (like: found it published in publication X in year Y, or the person looks older/younger than in another photo we have from year Z, things like that). --Rosenzweig τ 06:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My estimate for the Arletty photo (in the Gallica section) would be ca. 1939, based on her looking quite similar like she did in photos taken from the 1939 film Le jour se lève (Daybreak). --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[198] and [199] suggest that it was used as a postcard (= definitely publication). The second postcard has a credit to G. R. ALDO (that is fr:Aldo Graziati, an Italian working in France), who apparently worked as a photographer at Studio Harcourt during the Second World War (pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale). Which would support my ca. 1939 estimate. --Rosenzweig τ 10:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine. I updated the date and the author. Aldo Graziati died in 1953, so still PD-France. Yann (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it is apparently indeed a Harcourt photo and older than 70 years, I'd accept it as PD in France anyway. That applies for all files taken from Gallica listed above. But for these 1937 or later publications (there is a publication source for all others apart from the Arletty file) the URAA does apply. --Rosenzweig τ 12:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved File:Charles Dullin, L'Avare, 1944.jpg to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt 1937 to 1953 because it is not a file from Gallica after all. Must have slipped in here while copying text, sorry. --Rosenzweig τ 12:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Singaporean standing outside his HDB flat while holding up the Singapore flag.jpg

Not his/her work 2406:3003:2005:77C3:6860:6FCF:AF09:AFA 14:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cultural revolution scene.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Akishima Yuka as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: help=off Yann (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of one or more photos. Why is this DR controversial? It seems clear-cut to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: All files uploaded by User:莫亦未学会 can be

It looks like a duck to me decided. Do I have to search them one by one? Akishima Yuka (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the photos were captured during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), not by the uploader themselves as they described. Akishima Yuka (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, all but except File:The Stone Carving of the Liang dynasty(southern)-Royal Lady hanging out.jpg. Akishima Yuka (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be {{PD-China}}. Yann (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is, what about U.S. law? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that may be an issue, but this is not eligible for speedy deletion. It would be in the public domain in USA if published there at the time. Yann (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Break the four old.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Akishima Yuka as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: help=off Yann (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Some members of the United Red Army were waving a flag on the ruins.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Akishima Yuka as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: help=off Yann (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burn the tablet in cultural revolution.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Akishima Yuka as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: help=off Yann (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burn the statu of Buddhism in cultural revolution.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Akishima Yuka as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: help=off Yann (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddha destruction within the cultural revolution.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Akishima Yuka as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: help=off Yann (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Destroy the old, establish the new.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Akishima Yuka as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: help=off Yann (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Mathew Abeysinghe

It appears that these photos were uploaded without the permission of the different rightsholders, so we will have to delete them.

Gnom (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mel Wikipedia.png

Same photo appears at https://jeeni.com/team in slightly higher resolution, and with more of his hand visible, but with a red background. This image shows signs of having had the blue background applied over a red one. If Mel or Jeeni have released this photo under a free licence, it'll need to be confirmed by Commons:Volunteer Response Team or a statement on their website somewhere. Belbury (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandeira de Arniqueira.png

This file was initially tagged by 200.174.198.49 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F5|The author claims that it is the Flag of Arniqueira (Administrative region of the Federal District of Brazil), but there is no source that confirms this. On the contrary, it was found that the flag is a proposal from a vexillographer with no official value, as seen here in Portuguese: https://www.instagram.com/p/B_Ft5PYjKgt/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone cares, it's COM:INUSE. I won't be surprised if it's deleted in spite of that, though... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bouw van serviceflats in Kortrijk (2016).jpg

Duplicate of File:Residentie Budalys in 2016.jpg DimiTalen 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le nouveau testament. Mise en scène de Jean Laurent Cochet - photographies - Daniel Cande - btv1b9064252m (001 of 107).jpg

All files of Category:Le nouveau testament. Mise en scène de Jean Laurent Cochet - photographies - Daniel Cande - btv1b9064252m, not public domain : "specific conditions of use (BnF agreement)" Gzen92 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kieron Brodie.png

see description. not "own work" Xocolatl (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This was a mock up for a magazine called Homme magazine here in Malaysia. We did not go ahead with the article and I was given all rights to this photo to use as I please and I have also credited the photographer.

Is there something I can do to convince the admin that I have full rights to this photo? Please advise. Thanks! Kieron Brodie (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Heller Singer.jpg

This image is suspected of copyright violation because it is owned by Dani Diamond Photography, and he did not give permission for this image to be uploaded 24.63.193.52 16:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lisa Heller.jpg

Copyright Dani Diamond, no indication that uploader, a Ljhracer (talk · contribs) is this person or that the photo is otherwise freely licensed. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Heller.jpg

This image is suspected of copyright violation because it is owned by Dani Diamond Photography, and he did not give permission for this image to be uploaded 24.63.193.52 16:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Heller 777.jpg

This image is suspected of copyright violation because it is owned by Dani Diamond Photography, and he did not give permission for this image to be uploaded 24.63.193.52 16:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa heller.jpg

This image is suspected of copyright violation because it is owned by Dani Diamond Photography, and he did not give permission for this image to be uploaded 24.63.193.52 16:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renaissance de la Bièvre à Arcueil.jpg

Derivative work: no proof the original photo on this poster is free. Titlutin (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:H.E. Olexander Nechytaylo, Ambassador of Ukraine to Malaysia, made a call on Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad.jpg

Image credit Office of Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, not a work from the Ukrainian Embassy in Malaysia, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:H.E. Olexander Nechytaylo, Ambassador of Ukraine to Malaysia, made a call on Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad (2).jpg

Image credit Office of Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, not a work from the Ukrainian Embassy in Malaysia, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Outdoor art at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama LCCN2010638433.tif

While this photo is from LOC's Highsmith collection, it very clearly depicts Craig R. Wedderspoon's "Argyle" sculpture from 2010, which is likely not allowed due to no FoP on sculptures in the US. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/AllRules#Artworks_and_sculptures
ResistivKai (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Funerales de Alberto Fujimori 2.jpg

License is PDMark 1.0 from Flickr from a Peruvian government account but I can't find supporting evidence that Abel Aguilar is a government employee. Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the file to remove it from the review category. Usually I would not check if it is correct, wen a goverment account claim that someone work for them. Are there any indications that Abel Aguilar is in fact not a government employee? --MGA73 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Microsoft Edge file (16px).png

Trademarks on this file are wide-reaching (it likely does not qualify as simple geometry) and it serves little educational purpose The People's Internet (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2 kv lyssnar på kristallradio 1 barn.jpg

Undated old Swedish photograph, would need more information about the photograph to determine actual copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks to be 1920s. My attempts at reverse image searches did not succeed in finding any info on actual source/date. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by TornadoInformation12

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:2023LewistownILEF3.jpg: Photographer tentatively identified and emailed October 2; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810013361

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the Lewistown tornado.

Neutral for now on the others pending further info. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft 3-View Drawings

These images were all uploaded by myself and scanned from documents bearing "distribution statements" on the title page. I initially asked about the subject in a post in the village pump, but have since come to believe I have misunderstood the requirements. While I still do not believe there is a copyright violation – as that would require a "proprietary information" as a reason – I do believe there may be a violation of distribution rules. Therefore, I believe they should be deleted because they have what is essentially a non-free license. (Please note that this only applies to images that mention "distribution" statements in the permission field of the information template and not older images of the same type that do not bear the statement.) Alternatively, you may consider this a courtesy deletion.

I wasn't able to find any particular guidance on the issue other than a single deletion request that didn't seem to establish consensus. On the other side of things, an explanation of distribution statements can be found in DoD Instruction 5230.24 and as a chart explaining the different categories. –Noha307 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Tails Wx

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Afton, Iowa tornado April 26, 2024.jpg: Photographer confirms they own this image; stopped responding September 5 when asked about releasing under a free license. VRT ticket:2024102810013656
File:Hiram, Georgia snowfall December 2017 North American winter storm.jpg: Photographer tentatively identified and emailed October 1; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810013674

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the Iowa and Georgia images.

Weak delete on the other two pending any additional info. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy MacDougal photos hosted by the NWS

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of a named, third-party photographer. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owner, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Session mit Urban Ruths, Bonn 2022.jpg

Possible copyvio URBAN RUTHS BERLIN Lutheraner (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AcEagle12 (talk · contribs)

Dubious claims of own work. No metadata, mix of sizes, very grainy, and two might be AI.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Gwennie-nyan

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:2020aug10-derecho-LCramer-marshalltown, iowa.jpg: Photographer messaged on October 2; no response. VRT ticket:2024102810014173

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first image (File:2020aug10-derecho-LCramer-marshalltown, iowa.jpg);

Abstain for now on the other four pending further information and details.

@Rlandmann; please post the deletion rationale for the other three images. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is expressed in the final paragraph of the DR "All these images..."

It is the same as almost all the third-party content from NWS sites: there is no evidence of permission, and the COM:ONUS is on anyone who wants to keep them to provide that evidence. Up until last month, some folks asserted that the weather.gov general site disclaimer was evidence of permission (the only evidence...) but we now know that this isn't the case. There's no more detailed rationale than that, and the question is really to anyone who wants to keep them: "without the general disclaimer, what evidence for permission is there?"

Any work I've done in finding some of the photographers or asking questions of the NWS offices that published their images is a courtesy only and does not reverse the burden of proof, which resides, as it always has, with those who want to keep. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/28

October 28

Files found with Special:Search/File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 柯士甸道 140 Austin Road Market Place by Jasons Supermarket goods Thai Soymilk product brand 大力獅 Lactasoy September 2022 Px3

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Cyclonebiskit

Alternative version

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by WeatherWriter

Files found with Special:Search/"cvb" "CoA Lab-fr" -"CoA Lab-fr:CVB"

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Skyodyssey~commonswiki

Files uploaded by Rtrukhin (talk · contribs)

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by ChessEric

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by TheAustinMan

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by HurricaneHink

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt

Discussion

Confusing markup

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt 1954 to 1991

Discussion

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt 1937 to 1953

Discussion

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt claimed to be from before 1937

Discussion

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt with just estimates or dubious dates after 1936

Discussion

Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt from sources which claim they are under a free license

Wellcome

Gallica / Retronews

Discussion

Files in Category:Mathew Abeysinghe

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by TornadoInformation12

Aircraft 3-View Drawings

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Tails Wx

Andy MacDougal photos hosted by the NWS

Files uploaded by AcEagle12 (talk · contribs)

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Gwennie-nyan

Navigation menu

Search