Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blohin Leonid Gavrilovich.jpg
It's a derivative work of the historical photograph that is uploaded as a modern own work by the uploader. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm the owner of this foto and rights on it. User:Dergalev 19:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Owning a copy of a photo does not make you own its copyright. The copyright of a photograph usually rests with the original photographer and their heirs unless it was transferred in a written contract. De728631 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I repeat: I own negative from which the photo was made - this mean the right to the negative and image belongs to me. Copyright in the USSR were differ from copyright in the capitalist countries: the USSR of employee work belong to the employer, and the sphere of services - photo studios - transfered rights to the image - to the customer, together with the negative. The law is not retroactive, so you deleted many photos taken in the USSR in public photo studios - by which you violated the rights of their owners, you are making a mistake trying to change the rules retroactively. User:Dergalev 16:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe the article is incomplete, but I cannot find the concept of automatic transfer of copyright in Copyright law of the Soviet Union. Instead it reads (my emphasis) "Under the 1961 Fundamentals, legal entities such as companies could also hold copyrights. Examples of such corporate copyright ownership included photo studios who held the copyright on their photos, publishers of encyclopedias or periodicals, who held a copyright on the compilation as a whole, film studios, who owned the copyrights on movie scripts and the movies they produced, and select news agencies" which was changed in 1991 to "The initial copyright owner in all cases was the "citizen" (i.e., the natural person) who had created the work." Also, the 1993 copyright law of Russia is in fact retroactive according to the source in the Wikipedia article, so it does look like photos from the 1980s are copyrighted to the either the photo studio or the photographer but not the customer. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Only creative works expressed in some objective form are subject to copyright. The legislation of the USSR directly establishes the employer's ownership of the products of the employee's labor. What you are quoting is about ART photography. In any case, the right on depiction of a citizen belongs to that citizen. And the image of the photo made from negative belongs to the owner of the negative. I am the owner of the negative from which this photo was printed. User:Dergalev 16:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: ownership of the physical copy doesn't count as copyright ownership. --rubin16 (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
