Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barros Basto10.jpg
Own work unlikely, since the picture was probably taken in the 1920's. No particular reason to think it is in the PD either. BrightRaven (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You are right. The person who took this photo is most probably dead by now, either way I have the family permission to put this photo on Wikipedia. I don't know much about copyright and all that, but didn't find one that suited my situation and since I have the family/community permission just used that one. --Bricking (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- The only person who can grant such a permission is the person who took the photograph or his/her heirs. The permission of the family is irrelevant. BrightRaven (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- How's so? The person who took the photograph was paid to do that, taking personal portraits of Barros Basto and its family. All photos belong to the family and some are in the synagogue museum. So no, the photograph has nothing to do with the photograph. It's ridiculous to claim such. If you take a photo for your id or something similar the right to that photo are yours or the photograph? It is yours of course. --Bricking (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Of course not. The copyright belongs to the author of the artwork. See COM:L. BrightRaven (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- For an old image like that, if the author is unknown, maybe this licence could apply, but on the condition that the image was published more than 70 years ago and the name of the author was never disclosed. BrightRaven (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding copyright laws it could so in the USA, but in Portugal a photographer paid to take portraits of people have no right to said photograph. The person who took this is most likely dead either way the family who paid him has the photos and are the ones who matter legally. This picture wasn't published 70 years ago as again it was in the family possession. Wikimedia hasn't thought out that people acquire or have copyright of photos, video, etc, by other ways. Not every country functions in the legal sense as America.--Bricking (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons is highly aware of the copyright legislation in various countries, including Portugal. Please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Portugal. The fact is that the general rule in all countries, including Portugal, is: you need the author's authorization to publish a work of art. In the case of Portugal, the copyright law is very explicit: "Aquele que subsidie ou financie por qualquer forma, total ou parcialmente, a preparação, conclusão, divulgação de uma obra não adquire, por esse facto, sobre esta, salvo convenção escrita em contrário, qualquer dos poderes incluídos no direito de autor" (Art. 13 of the copyright law). BrightRaven (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I said before, this isn't a work of art, it is a personal photograph of Barros Basto. That said copyright doesn't apply.--Bricking (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the copyright law: "As criações intelectuais do domínio literário, científico e artístico, quaisquer que sejam o género, a forma de expressão, o mérito, o modo de comunicação e o objectivo, compreendem nomeadamente: [...] Obras fotográficas ou produzidas por qualquer processo análogos aos da fotografia; [...]" (Art. 2, § 1). BrightRaven (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- This whole discussion is becoming ridiculous as you clearly aren't able to understand simple things. This photograph was paid and as such the rights to it belong to the family. If you think they aren't you can go to a lawyer and ask yourself. I will no longer participate in this charade.--Bricking (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the copyright law: "As criações intelectuais do domínio literário, científico e artístico, quaisquer que sejam o género, a forma de expressão, o mérito, o modo de comunicação e o objectivo, compreendem nomeadamente: [...] Obras fotográficas ou produzidas por qualquer processo análogos aos da fotografia; [...]" (Art. 2, § 1). BrightRaven (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I said before, this isn't a work of art, it is a personal photograph of Barros Basto. That said copyright doesn't apply.--Bricking (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons is highly aware of the copyright legislation in various countries, including Portugal. Please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Portugal. The fact is that the general rule in all countries, including Portugal, is: you need the author's authorization to publish a work of art. In the case of Portugal, the copyright law is very explicit: "Aquele que subsidie ou financie por qualquer forma, total ou parcialmente, a preparação, conclusão, divulgação de uma obra não adquire, por esse facto, sobre esta, salvo convenção escrita em contrário, qualquer dos poderes incluídos no direito de autor" (Art. 13 of the copyright law). BrightRaven (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding copyright laws it could so in the USA, but in Portugal a photographer paid to take portraits of people have no right to said photograph. The person who took this is most likely dead either way the family who paid him has the photos and are the ones who matter legally. This picture wasn't published 70 years ago as again it was in the family possession. Wikimedia hasn't thought out that people acquire or have copyright of photos, video, etc, by other ways. Not every country functions in the legal sense as America.--Bricking (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- For an old image like that, if the author is unknown, maybe this licence could apply, but on the condition that the image was published more than 70 years ago and the name of the author was never disclosed. BrightRaven (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Of course not. The copyright belongs to the author of the artwork. See COM:L. BrightRaven (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- How's so? The person who took the photograph was paid to do that, taking personal portraits of Barros Basto and its family. All photos belong to the family and some are in the synagogue museum. So no, the photograph has nothing to do with the photograph. It's ridiculous to claim such. If you take a photo for your id or something similar the right to that photo are yours or the photograph? It is yours of course. --Bricking (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: For someone who says "I don't know much about copyright and all that" and has 24 edits on Commons, Bricking claims a lot of expertise. In fact, BrightRaven is correct. The copyright belongs to the photographer's heirs. And, perhaps more important, "the family permission to put this photo on Wikipedia" would not be sufficient even if they do own the copyright. Commons and Wikipedia require permission for all use, not just WP. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
