Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Martin Sutermeister at home, aug. 1961.JPG
The individual expression of thought required for protection is present because the photograph is given an individual character by the choice of framing. 2A02:1205:C6A6:51A0:A059:DC7B:FD36:13E0 22:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no all photographs are art photographs. Ruthven (msg) 22:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
It cannot be excluded that this is an art photograph despite the bad scan quality 178.197.232.111 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep Obviously a family photograph without any artistic pretension, cf. “Vati in seinem ‚Allerheiligsten‘!” - Olybrius (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: previously kept, no new argument. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This photograph was copyrighted in Switzerland until at least 1/1/2002 and perhaps until 1/1/2022 and therefore has a US copyright until 1/1/2057. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment Per the recent discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/02#Template:PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years, such a "simple" photograph (per Swiss criteria) wouldn't have been copyrighted on the URAA date. Not because the term of protection had expired, but because simple photos were not protected at all. The question is if the URAA restored the US copyrights of such photos. The VPC discussion came to the preliminary consensus that, in the absence of a US court decision, apparently either the URAA did not restore the copyrights of simple Swiss photos before March 1, 1989, or that at least as of now we should not delete them. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)- presumably the photographer was his daughter, or at least a member of the family?
- the uploader as an heir can publish it. RZuo (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per RZuo. Ruthven (msg) 11:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
