Commons:Deletion requests/All images in Category:Rider-Waite tarot deck
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.
All images in Category:Rider-Waite tarot deck
[edit]All images in Category:Rider-Waite tarot deck
plus
and any other Rider-Waite Tarot cards anyone can find.
These may not be in copyright in the US, but they (or images from which they are derived) were first published by an English woman Pamela Colman Smith in the UK. She died in 1951, so these will remain copyrighted by her estate, in the UK and all countries that respect the Berne Convention, until 2021. Simonxag (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep However, the (uncolored) designs were included in a book which was published in the United States before 1923, so they are very clearly out of copyright in the United States (regardless of the Berne convention). If someone scans in an illustration from a that book, or from a reproduction of that book, then I don't see how their copyright status in countries other than the U.S. is relevant at all (any more than it would be forbidden to include text from the King James Bible -- which is under Crown Copyright in the UK -- as part of an image uploaded to Commons). AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the book was not published (first) in the USA, but in the UK. See Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. --Simonxag (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- How does the status of the Tarot cards differ from the status of the KJV Bible, then? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- The King James Bible seems to be a one-off special case. The laws concerning it seem only to apply in the UK. Has anyone come across a claim that the Berne Convention could extend these beyond the UK? I don't know how the Commons squares its postion with UK law on the subject, but whatever the situation, this is no justification for ignoring ordinary UK copyrights. --Simonxag (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- How does the status of the Tarot cards differ from the status of the KJV Bible, then? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the book was not published (first) in the USA, but in the UK. See Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. --Simonxag (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The files do not appear to be in the public domain in the UK.--Rockfang (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Per policy, it has to be public domain in the UK to be accepted here.--Rockfang (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The cards, were in fact, published in the United States before 1923, and are therefore public domain in the United States and eligible for upload to Commons, regardless of whether or not they were first published in the UK. The images should be labeled with the appropriate PD-US tag but certainly not deleted. Also, bear in mind that the wide publication and the fact that Smith's estate has never had any interest in protecting her copyright on their wide publication precludes any late-stage demand for copyright protection. Bastique demandez 16:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Per policy, the file must be in the public domain in the "source country of the work".--Rockfang (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment On Commons, it does not really matter whether copyright holders actively protect their rights or not, see COM:PRP. If these are derivatives of drawings that were first published by Smith in the UK, this is probably not free enough for Commons. This double requirement is really irritatating. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete They were not first published by Smith; they were first published by the Rider Company. In fact Smith seems to have been a hired hand, no more and no less. I don't think that helps us any under UK law, though. Can we at least get a courtesy move to the English Wikipedia, though?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted, the images are not in the public domain in their source country, as required per our licensing policy. Furthermore, arguments as "they don't care" or "it is PD in the US (but not in the source country)" are not valid arguments for keeping. Kameraad Pjotr 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)