Commons:Deletion requests/File:Douglas-Kubrick-Spartacus.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

File:Douglas-Kubrick-Spartacus.JPG

[edit]

No evidence provided to support the claim that this photo was first published without a copyright notice. We can't simply assume that all publicity still photographs were published as such. See discussion at the Copyright Village Pump. Damiens.rf 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of discussion is at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Publicity_still_copyrights. Link above is to older version of discussion--WickerGuy (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Since this is from a book published 1972 (and pic has no copyright notice in book) in addition to being a photo taken in 1960, it is less ambiguously compliant than photos taken in the 50s, but from recent books.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does that address the concerns raised in the nomination? --Damiens.rf 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have noted on other files in this group, the original image page supplies a specific book from which the image is taken, which can be easily be checked to verify if it has a copyright notice or not. In fact, evidence was supplied: the exact book from which the photo is taken. At least 3 books on Stanley Kubrick supply copious copyright notices for the frames from films and no copyright notice at all for the photos of actors or SK on the set.
        Concern was raised for photos in books published after 1977, even if the photo was taken before that, but her the book itself is from before 1977, so per the standard WP policies Template:PD-US-no notice aren't we safe here?--WickerGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually both the copy of this photo sold on Ebay [1] and the copy on Imdb state a copyright by Universal pictures. The Imdb copy says the copyright is dated 1991 by Universal and MPTV, printed courtesy MPTV.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Snould probably note this was wayback in the Stanley Kubrick article as a non-free image back when the article had twice as many non-free images as it has now. (It now has about eight non-free images, at one point it had sixteen.) Once we all got stricter about WP:NFCC#8, it seemed there was no conceivable way to justify it.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original complaint conflates (and I think confuses) two issues. First, how do we know that this particular photo is either a publicity photo, and or otherwise public domain? Second, are publicity photos in general public domain? Actually, I think we are pretty safe on the second one- copyright experts DO think publicity photos are public domain. But it is problematic to presume a photo is a publicity photo with only modest evidence- rather than going for "preponderance" of evidence we should have solid proof.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: There is no proof that the photograph was published without a copyright notice; conversely, the ebay link supplied above shows a copyright notice on the release by Universal Pictures. If we are going to ignore that and rely on the book printed in 1972, then the book bears a copyright notice as noted in its reprint's copyright page.[2] That would cover every authorized content within (unless the material was published earlier elsewhere). The assertion that "publicity photos" are in public domain is misleading and misses the point entirely (as well as misunderstanding the experts' opinions). They are just like any published material in the 1923–1977; there are those that failed to comply with copyright law (which certain writers claim to be "many") and there are those that did so ("many" does not mean all, it can be 60% or even 10% if 300,000 publicity shots exist and 30,000—many—did not comply with copyright laws, but the fact remains there would be several thousands of copyrighted photographs out there). Commons:Project scope/Evidence dictates us to show what is claimed (that the material was published and failed to comply with copyright law); in this case, the original photograph should be viewed (or a reliable source specifically points this photograph to be in the public domain). None of it is shown here. Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Douglas-Kubrick-Spartacus.JPG&oldid=60747407"