Commons:Deletion requests/File:GeorgeMallory.jpg
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.
PD-old-70 with author unknown is wrong. This file needs either a valid rationale why it's free or a deletion. Adrian Bunk (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep In US the image should be PD because it's from 1916. In UK it should also be PD if I read this right. --Funfood ␌ 09:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is the author really unknown, or was the uploader just too lazy to do research (or confused that PD-old applies to the author, not the subject)? (And it is not even completely obvious to me whether UK law would apply here since the picture might have been taken in France.) --Adrian Bunk (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is one of many internet pages using this photo with a source [1], but I won't say this is really reliable. For France also +70 years after publication applies for anonymous works, which I would assume this is one. --Funfood ␌ 10:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- A big newspaper crediting it with "Photo: AP", there's nothing unreliable about that. The photo might or might not be anonymous, but AP has to know the copyright status.
- And [2] has the same photo on the front. This photobiography (sic) from the National Geographic has to contain reliable author information.
- Blindly assuming "anonymous work" as you do sounds highly dubious to me, especially in a case like here where the photo is used by companies/organizations that can be assumed to know the real situation. --Adrian Bunk (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- But the assumption that the NG had to contain reliable author information is biased by your assumption that the image couldn't be PD. If it was PD, the NG isn't supposed to give further information. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- PD-old-70 with author unknown is wrong.
- Anonymous-EU requires Always mention where the image comes from, as far as possible, and make sure the author never claimed authorship..
- The burden of proof that the image is in the public domain is on the person claiming it is in the public domain.
- You are wrong when you say I ever claimed that the image couldn't be PD. I am just saying that it is not yet proven that it is PD (be it by death of author or the author being anonymous or another reason).
- And I even pointed out in the discussion how you could get proof of whatever the copyright status is.
- --Adrian Bunk (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- But the assumption that the NG had to contain reliable author information is biased by your assumption that the image couldn't be PD. If it was PD, the NG isn't supposed to give further information. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is one of many internet pages using this photo with a source [1], but I won't say this is really reliable. For France also +70 years after publication applies for anonymous works, which I would assume this is one. --Funfood ␌ 10:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is the author really unknown, or was the uploader just too lazy to do research (or confused that PD-old applies to the author, not the subject)? (And it is not even completely obvious to me whether UK law would apply here since the picture might have been taken in France.) --Adrian Bunk (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If this file is deleted, could I be notified at my en.wiki talk page? Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unknown does not mean anonymous. Since we do not know when the photographer died, we cannot assume that it is PD in the UK. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
