Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Liberated French Prisoner in Tauberbischofsheim (Art.IWM ART LD 5072).jpg

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:A Liberated French Prisoner in Tauberbischofsheim (Art.IWM ART LD 5072).jpg

I don't see why this work should be PD-UKGov. Accd. to the source website, it apparently was purchased by the War Artists' Advisory Committee, not commissioned by the state.

The artist Edgar Ainsworth died in 1975, so the artwork is still protected until January 1, 2046. Rosenzweig τ 19:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This also applies to the following files:

• File:A French Prisoner-of-War (Art.IWM ART LD 5073).jpg
• File:A Street in Germany (Art,IWM ART LD 5071).jpg
• File:Prisoners-of-war in a Cellar, Tauberbischofsheim Art.IWMARTLD5070.jpg.

The

• Category:Edgar Ainsworth

should be deleted as well when empty. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Focusing only on works with images I see in the Imperial War Museum Collections:

The WAAC purchased a lot of art in order to document the war from a British perspective. Reading about these works, Ainsworth needed permission from the WAAC to be able to access the camps in Germany, and to send his Picture Post artists there. The Imperial War Museum normally take care to only release images on a Fair Use basis when there may be claims of copyright, in these cases they apply their own non-commercial license, which I would take as evidence that the IWM are unaware of any potential claim, including that of the estate of the artist. By 1947 the IWM were solely responsible for all 5,570 works collated and commissioned by the WAAC (then disbanded). As far as I am aware, there has never been any claim by the estates of the artists against the IWM (or later recipient institutions) for either the work itself or its intellectual property. Though there has never been a precedent court case or other legal challenge for WAAC artworks, it seems reasonable to believe that WAAC and the MOI (as they were originally jointly responsible) claimed full ownership of the works under the powers of the MOI and that effectively this then included a transfer of IP. The law in WW2 was specially written to give the MOI sweeping powers to claim property.

Given this background, unless we can find a specific past recognized challenge to copyright for WAAC artwork, I suggest we consider all 5,570 works to be confidently below the "significant doubt" level we expect for deletion to be needed per COM:PRP.  Keep

 Info There was a similar discussion that relied on analysis of copyright for Ministry of Information property at Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Political Personalities 1936-1945 HU49409.jpg, where there was more explanation about why the MOI involvement was important. --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

These are all rather general assumptions, and "it seems reasonable to believe" is not solid proof that this is what actually happened. --Rosenzweig τ 00:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Per War Artists' Advisory Committee "was a British government agency established within the Ministry of Information", so its powers were those of the MOI and its scope was to support the war effort with Government propaganda materials (the word "propaganda" has a more negative interpretation in the modern world than it did in the 1940s).

The decision here boils down to whether there is a consensus that sufficient significant doubt exists to require deletion unless more validation is provided, such as a copyright release from the artist (not going to happen, and permission from the artist's estate is irrelevant unless the IWM is breaking copyright law when it claims their equivalent of CC-NC) or the IWM as the source archive makes a clearer statement than they have already on their website (unlikely considering past correspondence with us). My view is that I just do not see a level of significant doubt in the light of the history of the last two decades when expired Crown copyright applies, as there has not been a single challenge to publication/reuse on copyright grounds for any of these works. Specific discussion within the WAAC on their implementation of copyright in the 1940s can be found within the WAAC Archive such as GP/46/10 (A) & (B) Contracts, Copyright and the Issue of Reproductions or GP/46/10 - Copyright. etc. These do not appear available online, but they are held by the Imperial War Museum with copies also available at the National Archives, if anyone would like to go and look at them. The WAAC archive documents are absolutely without doubt Crown copyright, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they are now public domain due to age and so copies could be published on, say, Wikisource if we can get hold of them. --Fæ (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This DR added as an case study to User:Fæ/email/IWM. --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep As per Fæ - Commission by WAAC is not the only basis for PD:UKGov status, eg if the artist was in military service, government employment or was commissioned by another branch of the UK Government, then the work would also qualify.14GTR (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

And that ("artist was in military service, government employment or was commissioned by another branch of the UK Government") was the case with Edgar Ainsworth? I'd like some more specific info for the images at hand, not just general information. --Rosenzweig τ 00:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• • Ainsworth was the Art Editor for Picture Post magazine throughout WW II, but was also a war correspondent accompanying Allied forces across Europe in the final stages of the conflict. The British practice at the time was to give war correspondents a honorary military rank, if they were not already enlisted, so as a member of the UK armed forces his work would have 50 years Crown Copyright then become public domain. I've included some accounts of his activities below. 14GTR (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

References

---

Kept: per Fae and 14GTR, while we may not be 100% certain, it is highly likely these were crown copyright, and are thus now PD. --Storkk (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)