Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caliph Abdulmecid II of the Ottoman Empire.jpg
License template removed by Asclepias (talk · contribs) with comment Carl did not take this photo the day after his death. Potential URAA problems as well. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep - It's PD-India. Carl is irrelevant. E4024 (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's a UK photo. Unless there is evidence that it was first published somewhere else. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Cappy, you know the Subcontinent better than the trio of us here. What do you think about this file? --E4024 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Photos like this, from the NPG collection to which they were "Given by Bassano & Vandyk Studios, 1974", are often deleted from Commons. On the basis of previous discussions, opinions from Commons users about such photos can be sorted into three main schools of thought:
- A) More permissive users would be willing to keep some photos under either PD-anon-70-EU or PD-UK-unknown if the necessary publication condition is met, that is if evidence is provided of a publication where the photo was actually published more than 70 years ago. Example of this opinion in this UDR discussion (although the decision was on a different gound). A subgroup of users would keep the files even in the absence of evidence that the publication required by the tags is met (example).
- B) Less permissive users hold the opinion that it must be assumed that the photographers from the studios were in fact known and the files are not eligible to PD-anon or PD-unknown. Examples of files deleted on this ground: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Alfred Bell.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baron Grimston of Westbury.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord Ashton.jpg.
- C) Some users would delete the files on the basis of the URAA (although that contradicts the directive of the Wikimedia Foundation, who reserves exclusively to itself and to its official legal team the evaluation and eventual decision about potential URAA cases). Example: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-04#File:Aneurin Bevan 1945.jpg.
- I would rather leave this to specialists of UK copyright. One thing is certain, it is that this photo cannot have the tag PD-old based on the year of the death of the founder of the studio, who was already dead when this photo was taken. The reason I did not nominate the file for deletion was to leave a chance that someone might be motivated to do a diligent research to find if the photo might have been published, for example in 1931 or 1932 magazines. If such publication is found, that would at least satisfy users of opinion "A", although not users of opinions "B" and "C". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fit India, can you share with the community your opinions about this case, too sophisticated for me, please? E4024 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept, at first author. This is anonymous work by Vandyk studio, because individual photographer cannot be traced. If the photographer was Herbert Vandyk (1879–1943), then his copyright is expired, but we cannot be sure in authorship. At second country of origin. We know publication in UK. There were claims, that it was created or published somewhere else, but no evidence was given, so UK laws apply. At third copyright. The company became "Bassano and Vandyk" in 1964. Bassano has since ceased to exist without known heir. The copyright on source country UK has expired. The photo is copyrighted in USA until at least 2027 (95+1 years from creation), but it is unknown, who can claim copyright. Taivo (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
