Commons:Deletion requests/Aboutmovies

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Aboutmovies|year=2025|month=January|day=05}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Aboutmovies|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Aboutmovies}} at the end of today's log.

Aboutmovies

[edit]

Freedom of Panorama Violation. This sculpture was created and installed in 1938. --Missvain (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No mention of copyright here, and no renewal found anyway. So either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Wknight94 talk 05:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where SIRIS states that there is a copyright on any (but a small amount) of sculptures in their database (and I work daily with SIRIS via WSPA, so I'm rather embarrassed if that's the case)]. Any help would help. Thank you :) Missvain (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SIRIS tends to mention inscriptions and copyright notices if there are any. It seems highly unlikely that this was copyrighted ->  Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Couple things to note. First, just because something was published after 1923 does not mean it is protected by copyright. First, in 1938 since that is what we are dealing with, the author would have needed to not only register the work, but also place a notice of said copyright on the work (Sec. 9 of the 1909 Act). I doubt you would find a copyright notice on the statute (which may be part of the answer to the SIRIS question above). Now, if we are talking post 1976, and even better post 1989, yes, no longer need to register or provide notice, those acts just get you extra rights. Plus you no longer need to renew, which the author would have needed to do in this instance. Renewal would have been in 1966 (1938+28), a few years after he died, and I would not be surprised if his heir failed to renew. Additionally, the WPA paid for a significant chunk of the new Capitol Building project, and it would not be surprising if Ellerhusen was working for the WPA at the time, which would mean it was a PD as fed gov work. No matter what, it is all speculation unless someone wants to hire a copyright search service to see if it was registered and renewed. In the meantime, as only the copyright holder can assert the copyright and issue a take-down notice, I say keep it, since in this instance the probability that it is still in copyright is low. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not completely conclusive, a search of the artist's last name in the Copyright registry volumes scanned by Google comes up empty. As in nothing registered. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep same as above. no delete-franzy please... :) --Heptagon (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Aboutmovies&oldid=47426393"