Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coronation of King George VI.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Deleted Since there is significant uncertainty here and no definitive explanation of why this work by a private artist should have a Crown Copyright, I'm falling back on PRP and deleting it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
w:Francis Owen Salisbury died in 1962. Unless someone wants to argue for Crown Copyright somehow, it seems clearly under copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- From the 1911 Copyright Act: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work. It sounds very much to me that a work commissioned by the Crown would have been Crown Copyright in those days. The 1956 act's wording was if anything stronger, and was not relaxed until the 1988 act (Crown employees in the course of their duties), but I'm not sure that would have changed who the copyright owner on existing works would have been. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- What is interesting about this 1936 portrait is that the painter Francis Owen Salisbury wasn't directly commissioned by King George VI or the UK government. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa presented it to King George VI as a gift. What makes this complicated is at the time these four countries were Dominions, and after the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the 1931 Statute of Westminster the Dominions were autonomous (although theoretically still owing allegiance to the Crown). It's not clear if these four countries bought the painting from Salisbury and gave it to King George, or if they commissioned Salisbury to create it. Assuming they did, in fact, jointly commission Salisbury to create the work it might still be covered by Crown Copyright, albeit in a sort of round-about way. Salisbury published an autobiography in 1944, I will try to get ahold of a copy and see if it can clarify the situation. —RP88 11:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: First, we don't know whether the four Dominions had anything to do with this until after it was created. Second, commissioning a painting would not qualify for the level of control required by "been prepared or published by or under the direction or control" -- artists are notoriously unwilling to be controlled. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
Photograph of a work of art painted by an artist who died in 1962: PD-Art does not apply and it is not a Crown Copyright work. DrKiernan (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- It might well be considered a Crown Copyright work, if it was initially published by the the crown. In those days, Crown Copyright tended to be fairly expansive, as noted by the definition in the 1911 act (which got even more expansive in the 1956 act, before being toned down in 1988, but that did not change the Crown Copyright status of previous works). But it does sound as though the creation of the painting has some interesting technicalities which can muddy the waters a bit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- The royal collection does not appear to fall under Crown copyright[1]. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That page doesn't say either way (being under Crown Copyright is still copyrighted). This page indicates it is Crown Copyright. The 1911 definition would appear to include material prepared or published under the control of the King personally in the realm of Crown Copyright; the question is more if it would be considered Crown Copyright under 1936 rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see nothing at that page indicating it is under Crown copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The very bottom says "The Royal Household © Crown Copyright"; the Royal Collection is one of the five departments of the Royal Household apparently. And the collection, trust, etc. did not exist in 1936. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's just the copyright notice for that web page. It has nothing to do with items in the collection. DrKiernan (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that is just as true of the first link ;-) It does however indicate that the Royal Household items are considered Crown Copyright, and since the Collection is a department of the Household, that would be the same. I think this line of reasoning is irrelevant though as none of those existed in 1936 and if the painting was Crown Copyright then the status has not changed. To me, it probably rides solely on if there was a special agreement concerning copyright with the artist. That is a distinct possibility, though I haven't seen any indication of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The link from the source explicitly says "all elements of the website [including the pictures] are protected by copyright ... no images may be reproduced, communicated to the public, distributed, re-used or extracted from this website for commercial use". The link you provided explicitly says the Collection is a separate charity independent from the government. There is no evidence anywhere saying the image was Crown copyrighted in 1937 - that is entirely an invention of wikimedians. There is, however, a reliable source that the image is copyrighted now since the source of the image says that it is. DrKiernan (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Correct, they are protected by copyright... Crown Copyright. That is still a copyright, with the same exact rights -- the only difference is the term. The link says it is a trust, and not under control of the Queen as an individual -- that does not mean it's not part of the government. The website undoubtedly contains lots of legitimately copyrighted works, so a blanket statement like that is fine. It says nothing about the copyright term of any specific item. Anyways, the copyright of the image is not at issue -- while the UK may claim copyright over that, we follow PD-Art, and treat it as a straight copy (without any additional copyright) of the original painting. So, we are concerned solely about the copyright status of the painting itself. There was no Collection, no trust, or whatever in 1937, so those are not relevant to the copyright term of the painting. If the painting was Crown Copyright in 1937, it remained Crown Copyright (subsequent laws did not change that status), and has probably expired regardless of who owns the physical item. If the artist retained copyright, then it has a 70pma term, regardless of who owns the copyright or the physical item now, and any copies should be deleted. So, the question is -- was the painting Crown Copyright in 1937? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. The royal collection is not Crown copyright. It is protected by ordinary copyright. It is independent of the government. Besides, even if it were part of the government, none of Salisbury's work in the government art collection is Crown copyright anyway,[2] so even if you still do not accept that the collection is not a part of the government, then you still have no reason to think that this painting should be any different from any of his other work owned by the government. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- By their own web page: The website and its contents are owned and operated by Royal Collection Trust, part of the Royal Household. The Royal Household is part of the government (site is royal.gov.uk); the Collection Trust would also therefore appear to be part of the government. Their works should seemingly therefore be Crown Copyright. They simply say "protected by copyright"; that does not exclude Crown Copyright.
- Their own copyright statement: Royal Collection Trust / © HM Queen Elizabeth II 2015. If something is authored by the Queen, that is basically by definition Crown Copyright. Perhaps if they accept no public money, which is possible, it could be different. However...
- All of the above is completely irrelevant to the copyright of the painting in question, and of the copyright status of any of the actual items *in* the collection. They retain whatever copyright term they had when they entered the collection. If it was a private copyright, then yes it was a term of 70pma (even if the collection owns the copyright now). The analysis is item-by-item and has nothing to do with what type of copyright works by Trust employees get. Some of the works they own have expired (regardless if they claim copyright on the photos), some are under still-valid private copyright, and some are under Crown Copyright, no doubt. If works were done by Salisbury privately and later given to the government, they would not be Crown Copyright (such as, most likely, the ones that you linked to in the government collection). The question is what is the case with this painting, which was apparently commissioned by four governments (all of which had the exact same Crown Copyright wording in their copyright laws) as a gift to the King (which may then have usurped the copyright if they were the first to really publish it). Crown Copyright was pretty aggressive in those days about taking over copyright. If it was Crown Copyright then, it's Crown Copyright now, as that status never changed. If it was considered a private copyright then, it's a 70pma term and copies of it here should be deleted. That is really the only question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Collection accepts no public money. That is explicitly and clearly stated. 86.191.160.181 17:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. The royal collection is not Crown copyright. It is protected by ordinary copyright. It is independent of the government. Besides, even if it were part of the government, none of Salisbury's work in the government art collection is Crown copyright anyway,[2] so even if you still do not accept that the collection is not a part of the government, then you still have no reason to think that this painting should be any different from any of his other work owned by the government. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Correct, they are protected by copyright... Crown Copyright. That is still a copyright, with the same exact rights -- the only difference is the term. The link says it is a trust, and not under control of the Queen as an individual -- that does not mean it's not part of the government. The website undoubtedly contains lots of legitimately copyrighted works, so a blanket statement like that is fine. It says nothing about the copyright term of any specific item. Anyways, the copyright of the image is not at issue -- while the UK may claim copyright over that, we follow PD-Art, and treat it as a straight copy (without any additional copyright) of the original painting. So, we are concerned solely about the copyright status of the painting itself. There was no Collection, no trust, or whatever in 1937, so those are not relevant to the copyright term of the painting. If the painting was Crown Copyright in 1937, it remained Crown Copyright (subsequent laws did not change that status), and has probably expired regardless of who owns the physical item. If the artist retained copyright, then it has a 70pma term, regardless of who owns the copyright or the physical item now, and any copies should be deleted. So, the question is -- was the painting Crown Copyright in 1937? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The link from the source explicitly says "all elements of the website [including the pictures] are protected by copyright ... no images may be reproduced, communicated to the public, distributed, re-used or extracted from this website for commercial use". The link you provided explicitly says the Collection is a separate charity independent from the government. There is no evidence anywhere saying the image was Crown copyrighted in 1937 - that is entirely an invention of wikimedians. There is, however, a reliable source that the image is copyrighted now since the source of the image says that it is. DrKiernan (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that is just as true of the first link ;-) It does however indicate that the Royal Household items are considered Crown Copyright, and since the Collection is a department of the Household, that would be the same. I think this line of reasoning is irrelevant though as none of those existed in 1936 and if the painting was Crown Copyright then the status has not changed. To me, it probably rides solely on if there was a special agreement concerning copyright with the artist. That is a distinct possibility, though I haven't seen any indication of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's just the copyright notice for that web page. It has nothing to do with items in the collection. DrKiernan (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The very bottom says "The Royal Household © Crown Copyright"; the Royal Collection is one of the five departments of the Royal Household apparently. And the collection, trust, etc. did not exist in 1936. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see nothing at that page indicating it is under Crown copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That page doesn't say either way (being under Crown Copyright is still copyrighted). This page indicates it is Crown Copyright. The 1911 definition would appear to include material prepared or published under the control of the King personally in the realm of Crown Copyright; the question is more if it would be considered Crown Copyright under 1936 rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The royal collection does not appear to fall under Crown copyright[1]. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete As I understand the history of the work, it clearly was not commissioned by the UK government. Therefore the paragraph in the 1911 UK copyright act quoted above is irrelevant -- the four dominions had their own copyright laws by this time -- Canada in 1921. It may or may not have been commissioned by the four dominions. If it was commissioned, rather than simply purchased, it may or may not be covered by Crown Copyright -- the standard for a Crown Copyright goes beyond what most artists will accept. Given that there are two levels of uncertainty here, I think the PRP applies and we must delete it again.
- I note for the record that this discussion should technically be taking place at an UnDR, because this image is a {{Speedy}}, having been deleted once and not restored through the UnDR process. However, I think we might as well continue it here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that the 1911 law also stated that anything *published by* the Crown also became Crown Copyright, regardless of previous authorship. That doesn't happen anymore but it did at the time, and that status remains. Artists should have been aware of that if making a painting intended for the Crown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Carl, I don't understand why you think the 1911 UK law is relevant at all. As I said above, the dominions had their own laws by then -- at least Canada did -- and, assuming that the four dominions did commission the work, which is still unproven, which of the four laws would apply? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well first, all those countries typically had copyright laws based directly on (and pretty much identical to) the 1911 UK Act. Secondly, if it was intended as a gift for the King and the UK Crown was the first to publish it, then the UK Crown may well have usurped the copyright. (And in those days, there really was just the one "Crown", so it may have been Crown Copyright regardless of which country was involved.) It does sound like it is a bit of a muddy situation though. It's just that Crown Copyright of that era was a lot more aggressive/expansive and tended to take over copyrights which were originally private in a lot of situations. But, there certainly could have been an understanding or contract with the painter in this case, which would override anything else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Carl, I don't understand why you think the 1911 UK law is relevant at all. As I said above, the dominions had their own laws by then -- at least Canada did -- and, assuming that the four dominions did commission the work, which is still unproven, which of the four laws would apply? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- This item in the royal collection is not an original. It is a print of the original. I'd be very surprised if someone purchasing or commissioning a print obtains copyright rights from that purchase. DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The four dominions gave a print to the King? Forgive me, but I find that hard to understand. Where is the original? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is the deleted file identical to the current file? Is there any information in the deleted revisions that tell us the history of the image? I don't see anything at the current source about the provenance. DrKiernan (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- DrKiernan, the deleted file was RCIN 407573 and was an image of the original painting, while the current file is RCIN 751205 which is an image of a print of the original painting. —RP88 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is the deleted file identical to the current file? Is there any information in the deleted revisions that tell us the history of the image? I don't see anything at the current source about the provenance. DrKiernan (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The four dominions gave a print to the King? Forgive me, but I find that hard to understand. Where is the original? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The difference is not important -- the provenance of the image does not really matter. Since WMF has adopted Bridgeman as policy, the only question that matters is whether the painting is PD or not. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jim, from your indentation I guess that comment is directed to me? If so, I readily and obviously agree that what is relevant to this discussion is the PD status of the original painting and appogize for engendering confusion if my latest comment somehow suggested otherwise. —RP88 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for confusion -- I mostly indent just to make it clear that it's a new comment. Usually that's OK, but, as you say, here it might have been clearer if I had not. It was not really directed at you -- you just answered the question posed by DrKiernan. My point is that his question is moot. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jim, from your indentation I guess that comment is directed to me? If so, I readily and obviously agree that what is relevant to this discussion is the PD status of the original painting and appogize for engendering confusion if my latest comment somehow suggested otherwise. —RP88 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The difference is not important -- the provenance of the image does not really matter. Since WMF has adopted Bridgeman as policy, the only question that matters is whether the painting is PD or not. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted Since there is significant uncertainty here and no definitive explanation of why this work by a private artist should have a Crown Copyright, I'm falling back on PRP and deleting it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
