Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francoise Arnoul 1958.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:Francoise Arnoul 1958.jpg

[edit]

Image would not have been out of copyright in Israel in 1996, and thus copyright would have been extended by the URAA (in the US). Furthermore, assuming the explanation at Category:PD Israel & British Mandate is correct and that Pridan completed this image as a government employee, under the 2008 Israeli copyright law the copyright of this image would have been extended, and thus this image would still be under copyright in Israel.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the discussion Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA? For now, please remove the template and await the conclusion of that discussion.
Nevermind the fact that your understanding of the 2008 Israeli copyright law is probably erroneous: "...a photograph taken before May 25, 2008 is released to the public domain on January 1 of the 51st year after its creation." This photo was taken on December 1958.Oyoyoy (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not part of a massive deletion, and the proposals there are almost certainly not going to pass. This discussion should be fine. As for the Israeli law, it appears I was mistaken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep it should be noted that the photo was taken by Moshe Pridan as part of his job for the Israeli Government Press Office. As such it's "Also, the previous status-quo will continue to apply to state-owned photographs (the equivalent of Crown copyright), i.e. any photograph whose copyrights are owned by the state will be subject to the 50 year period arrangement also under the new law.".
Additionally; once again, the foundation clearly doesn't support deleting based solely on a general concern that the work may be infringing under URAA. Also, it was my understanding we've decided not to delete such files based only on such concerns as per here. --CyberXRef☎ 00:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the statement immediately after it: "Community members should always refrain from uploading content that they know to be infringing." (emphasis mine), and the discussion afterwards. This, and the fact that the sentence you quote says "based solely on a general concern that the work may be infringing" (i.e. in the case where URAA is a possibility, but it's not definite, whereas this one would clearly have been extended under the URAA). Both clearly indicate, in my reading, that the Foundation does not support the retention of clear violations of the URAA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The statement after it doesn't talk about the URAA in general as you are implying - otherwise the whole message would be a self-contradiction; clearly not what the legal counsel ment. Additionally, this is Gov work therefore has per the crown copyright, it's applied everywhere. And in addition to that, we actually don't know it's a clear violation; do we know this picture was not published in the US within 30 days thereby voiding URAA? That's not something too far-fetched considering this picture was taken at the peak of her popularity by an office who's sole purpose is to publish such stuff around the world (this is clearly a PR shot, she is in a very attractive pose, taken by an employee of the Israeli Government Press Office). It's not as simple to say it's a clear violation... --CyberXRef☎ 21:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formerly government-owned works are an unusual case: When the only group that could claim copyright says it's out of copyright, I'd want to see some legal precedent before we presume that copyright hasn't been effectively waived.  Keep barring evidence of a precedent under American law. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Non URAA deletions Alan (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Francoise_Arnoul_1958.jpg&oldid=120537284"