Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fort Lachine.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:Fort_Lachine.jpg

[edit]

Request by original uploader. Uncertain of public domain status. Publication date for this image is 1927. Therefore, may not be public domain in the United States and should be deleted to avoid copyright issues. AlphaEta (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment It was first published in Quebec in 1927? If so, any reason why {{PD-Canada}} would not apply? I don't think US copyright would be relevant unless the book was also published in the USA and US copyright applied for and later renewed. Any evidence that the book was also published in the USA? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher of this books is belgian see the notice here. The book was never published in USA. ChristianT (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep To me it is corresponding to the {{PD-Canada}} licence. The book as not been published in USA so don't see why a USA licencing is necessary. -- ChristianT (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If the publisher was Belgian, wouldn't it fall under European Union copyright laws? That would be life of the author plus 70 years. The author died in 1941, so I'm still not sure that it is public domain. Thanks, --AlphaEta (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1941 + 70 = 2011. Works by authors who died in 1941 when copyright is death + 70 years became PD on 1 January of this year, I believe. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using this table on the Cornell University website, this image would fall under the following category: "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases)" for material published 1923 through 1977. Therefore, the US copyright would expire 95 years after initial publication. The book was published in 1927, so it is still under copyright in the US until 2022. --AlphaEta (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. The book author was apparently Alexis de Barbezieux (1854 - 1941) who apparently was a Canadian. Is he considered the author of the graphic as well? Can't tell at that resolution if it is signed in any way. Most of his books were published in Canada itself, which seems to indicate he wrote for a Canadian audience. The publisher, Desclée de Brouwer, did have a Quebec agent apparently (per this page), so they did apparently market their books in Canada. Even if printed in Belgium, if it was made available in Canada within 30 days of it being made available in Belgium, then it would be "simultaneously published". If that is the case, the Berne Convention would use Canada as the country of origin since it has the shorter term (50 pma), where it became PD in 1991. If it was only published in Belgium, then it would seem to have just become PD there a few days ago. As for the U.S.... when simultaneously published, they don't use quite the same rule as Berne, rather they use the country with the "greatest contacts with the work". With a Canadian author and subject matter... that might well be Canada, in which case PD-Canada would apply, and it would be PD in the U.S. as well since copyright expired there before 1996. If it was distributed in Belgium first, and only sent to Canada later (i.e. more than 30 days), then yes it would seem the U.S. copyright did get restored, and would expire in 2023. However, we have generally been tagging such works with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, and not deleting them, pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case regarding the URAA, which should happen sometime this year. I'm really not sure on the "simultaneous publication" question... not sure how much we could assume. It's at least quite possible to me though, given the Canadian authorship, and the fact that Canadians would be the most likely purchasers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carl, thank you for your amazingly detailed and thoughtful analysis of this situation! As the original uploader of this image, I'm not comfortable with it being on Commons if there's even a possibility that its copyright was restored in the US due to the URAA. Is it possible to delete the image now, instead of applying a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, and I can re-upload it if the Supreme Court overturns the URAA legislation? Kindest regards, --AlphaEta (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, as an uploader-requested nomination. Someone else could re-upload if they feel strongly about it. I can't quite vote for deletion otherwise since my gut feeling is that was probably published in Canada from the outset, but that's not proof in any way. But if you don't want to be associated with it, given the slight possibility of some risk, then we can respect that too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your analysis Clindberg. This books was written by a canadian for a canadian public. I see no reason for this book to be published in Belgium at the same time. I don't think that the public in Belgium in 1929 would have been interested by this kind of subject. Anyway i made a little query at Bibliotheque Royale de Belgique (the national bibliotheque of Belgium) that give me no hit see : [1]. So i think that the book was only for canadian audience and i'd never been avalaible in Belgium. This confirm the theory of Clindberg about the fact that it is a «canadian» book and also seems to result in a PD-Canada licence. -- ChristianT (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • A full pdf copy of the book is available from the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (BAnQ) (ChristianT linked to it above). The only copyright/printing information I could find was on the last page where it says "Imprimé par Désolée De Brouwer et Cîe, Bruges (Belgique)" ("Printed by De Brouwer and Co., Bruges (Belgium)"). I can't find any information in the book about Canadian availability/printing. Therefore, we can't confidently state that it was "simultaneously published" in Canada. Because BAnQ posted the entire book, it's PD in Canada, but oddly enough, using the URAA rules, it is probably still under copyright protection in the US. --AlphaEta (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Because we don't know for certain if the book truly was published in Canada, and after considering the excellent information provided by Carl Lindberg above, I, as the original uploader, am truly uncomfortable with the possibility that this image may still be under copyright in the US. I uploaded the image in good faith (believing it was in the public domain in the US) and now that I am fully informed, I am asking, in good faith, for it to be deleted. I truly do appreciate ChristianT's point of view, but I'm not confident that we have enough information to know for certain that it was published in Canada. I respectfully ask that an administrator delete the image. As I said above, I will gladly re-upload the image if the US Supreme Court overturns the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act. Kindest regards, --AlphaEta (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete When I read the comments above, I thought there was a confusion here between printing and publishing. "Imprimé par Désolée De Brouwer et Cîe, Bruges (Belgique)" speaks only to the printer, not the publisher. However, the title page of the book calls out a Belgian publisher. It is certainly possible that the book was never actually offered for sale in Belgium, only in Canada, but without evidence of that we are stuck with URAA. Since the Supreme Court has spoken, it is time for us to decide what to do with books that fall into the URAA category, but this DR is not the place to do it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... they are a company which also marketed books in Canada, as noted above. It's even possible that the book was printed in Belgium but never published (i.e. offered to the public) there. An introductory page contains a quote from the church in Montreal granting permission for the book (I guess because the author was a member of the clergy there), which strongly suggests the target audience is the Canadian public (Google translation of a portion: "Moreover, working for your country Canada, you are still working for God. A true Canadian is a true Catholic. The more your readers will remain attached to their nationality, the more they will like the Holy Church. Your book will be read with love not only by children but also by the general public, I firmly believe, I bless you with all my heart.") If this book was initially marketed in Canada, or even within 30 days of it being marketed in Belgium, then the country of origin (both per the Berne Convention and U.S. URAA law) is Canada, and this work is PD in the U.S. The only way for this to still be under copyright is if it was solely published in Belgium for a period. The book also does use illustrations from a number of sources without real credit; unsure if these illustrations were really made for the book (no separate illustrator is mentioned) or pulled from earlier sources (as many of the illustrations obviously were, as they are old paintings). But, with a Google Images search, I can't find mention of any source other than this one (most places just use the image without attribution), so I guess we need to presume this is the source. I think there is another illustration of the fort here, which comes from an 1893 book apparently, and may have been a reproduction of an even earlier work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, I completely agree with your logic and thank you for taking more time to consider this deletion request. My fear is that we're lacking firm evidence that the book was indeed offered in Canada within 30 days of being printed. Unfortunately, I'm not certain where we would find that evidence. I know I'm being overly cautious about this (maybe a little paranoid), but given the available facts, I still think the image should be deleted as a precaution due to significant doubt of its freedom. Moreover, the new Fort Lachine image you've discovered was published in 1893, is known to be PD in the US, and could be uploaded to Commons to cover the same subject matter. Thank you, --AlphaEta (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you, as the uploader, would rather not take the risk -- that's fine by me, and I can support deletion with that. If someone else wanted to upload it... I probably would not vote to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: First, thank you to all the parties who participated in this discussion, as the level of copyright knowledge, research and discussion was outstanding.

As there have been no new comments since January, the time to close this discussion has arrived. It is clear from the evidence that this work is from a book by a Canadian author, the subject of the book is Canadian, and the printer in Belgium marketed its products to Canadians in this period. It is also evident from the introduction of the book that it was intended for a Canadian audience. Finally, it is also clear that the book is not registered with the Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique (the depository for all books ever published in Belgium). Those are the facts we know.

Everyone also seems to agree that the book was probably only printed in Belgium, but made available to the public in Canada. However, that last piece of information is speculative, and as such, some people here have favoured deletion due to the fact that we do not know for sure that the book was ever published/made available to the public in Canada.

The precautionary principle does not require 100% certainty. It does allow some lattitude for common sense, especially when the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly favours one conclusion (as is the case here). In this case, the evidence clearly suggests that the book is Canadian. Therefore, this image should be kept. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fort_Lachine.jpg&oldid=87493631"