Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eleanor Audley (1905-1991) portrait.jpg

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:Eleanor Audley (1905-1991) portrait.jpg

No indication of publication nor creation date. — Racconish ^💬 07:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep This image comes from the Billy Rose Theatre Collection which consists of publicity images in circulation. I could see arguing that it remained out of circulation if it had a named photographer and the photographer, or their estate, deposited them in an archive. We have that situation with the Getty archive. United States copyright case law has declared that an image becomes public when it leaves the custody of the photographer. See the corresponding case law at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. Like every image prior to smartphones, dates are estimated by the birth and death years of the person in the image. There is also no copyright registration or copyright renewal for any image of Eleanor Audley in either database. Copyright registration was required up to 1989. --RAN (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I find the Copyright Office analysis to be somhow more complex : "A photograph is published when copies of that photograph are offered to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution or public display. The public display of a photograph, in and of itself, does not constitute publication". [1] [2]. A broad understanding of the above is that publication occurs when there is a commercial use of the photography [3]. But even in that broader sense, we do not have enough information to make an assessment here. — Racconish ^💬 15:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Instead of you and I interpreting the law as written, we already have case law on the ruling on that very topic, as I already pointed out: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. All evidence points to a three ring binder used by casting directors. This is a well worn positive print, not a negative sequestered in an archive and never printed. The negative is the original creative work, and every "perceivable copy" must comply with copyright formalities, if a copyright was ever intended. See for example: Category:Bain copyright notice. You pointed to Stark law and their insight on published versus unpublished which reads: "There are plenty of ways to "make commercial use" of a work without literally offering copies of it for sale. A one-of-a-kind painting hung in a gallery, for example, is published because it has entered into the commercial stream. If you bought ad space on Facebook and used a photograph you took, that photograph would likely be considered published, despite the fact that you are not offering to sell copies of it; you have used the photograph for commercial purposes and are relying on copyright law to protect your exclusive use of it." I would say that publicity headshots are "commercial use", we house thousands of them. --RAN (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  In the case you refer to, there was an attribution to a professional photographer which cannot be made here. Therefore I think the principle of precaution should apply. — Racconish ^💬 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  You might as well argue that the other case involved a picture of a man, and this is a picture of a woman. Our precautionary principle requires that you present some sort of actionable evidence, not speculation that can be applied to every/any image. --RAN (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep The back of the picture can be seen at [4], and there is no copyright notice. Yann (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Kept: per RAN and Yann. --Gbawden (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)