Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burmese Pony.jpg
I don't see how this can be hosted here. It may be out of copyright in the USA (though I'd be surprised if Warne had forgotten the elementary precaution of including a copyright notice in the book), but it appears not to be in its country of origin, the United Kingdom. Summerhays died in 1976, copyright presumably expires 70 years after that. If I'm right about this, several other images from the same book will also need to be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- It definitely is mis-tagged and the appropriate tag is {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I edited the page to include that tag, though I'd say there is room for further debate, and I'm not going to take a strong position either way. (It's not a great image individually, but we probably need to resolve the question for all the similar images from the works of this author). Basically, if we have a US Edition published between 1923 and 1963 with notice but notice not renewed, that publication does pass into the public domain. I have mixed results doing my standard checks for these works. On one hand, none of Summerhays' works show up in the copyright renewal databases at Stanford University nor at the US Copyright office. So that is probably adequate for a good faith argument that inclusion cited to a US Edition is acceptable, hence my edit. That said, these databases are always to be used with caution and it is hard to prove a negative, so reasonable minds can differ. To be fair, on the other hand, Hathi Trust states that the 1949 and 1961 editions are under copyright, which may indicate a UK claim, as both editions are published by Warne of London. (See Commons:Hirtle_chart) That said, WorldCat shows multiple reprints, some that include a New York designation, including: the 1948 edition, plus some from 1951, 1953,, 1961, and 1964. But, with that, I'll leave it to the copyright gurus here to further assess. Montanabw (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Montanabw. Our policy is quite clear, if somewhat ungrammatical: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media … that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work". I don't see how this UK image can be out of copyright in the UK. Actually I don't see how it can be out of copyright in the USA either, as copyright was apparently renewed with the new edition of 1968. Other files that I can see that are taken from the same work are:
- I don't think any of them will be a great loss if it turns out I'm right about this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that these images are no great loss to the Commons if they go, and to that extent, I have no strong feelings in either direction. It appears that the US and the UK do NOT apply the "rule of the shorter term" but I'm not certain.(?) And, it's possible the works were renewed by subsequent reprints, but, for example, the original text and illustrations of pre 1923 works that are in the public domain are not "re-upped" by subsequent reprints, so I honestly do not have an answer as to how that applies. All I really care about on this one is getting it right. I hope a couple of folks with additional expertise to bring can pop by and comment. Montanabw (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't it so that the USA copyright law only counts if the picture was first published in that country? If the pictures in question was first published in the UK the UK copyright law should still be valid? //Vätte (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's when it was first published in the country, (and whatever is going on in the other country); not if it was first published there... but on this one, it will not be a great loss to Commons if the image is deleted, so if the nuances aren't clear, it's also not of earth-shattering significance. My sense is that if Hathi Trust doesn't have full text and images, then most likely it is not PD-US-not renewed. Montanabw (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: We have an image from a work published in the United States and, according to Stanford, not renewed. That makes the country of origin the US, where it is PD. For our purposes it is irrelevant that the work may still be under copyright in the UK or elsewhere -- that is often true of US works that were not renewed. As for the other questions, reprinting a work does not reset the copyright on material in an earlier edition -- only any new material has the later copyright date. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
