Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hermann Staudinger Nobel.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:Hermann Staudinger Nobel.jpg

I had removed the Martin H.'s copyvio tag, but there is a problem. Here the photo is attributed to Fritz Eschen, made in 1964. It seems that the Nobel site in this case did not use the photo published in "Les Prix Nobel" of 1953. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, that website is simply build up on works licensed from various agencies. Neither taken by the Nobel Price organization, not first published by them, not first published in Sweden. And they not say so, all this information is simply constructed and invented by the uploader for the purpose to upload a file to Commons. Concering that Commons is forcing its users to manipulate history this way. But I think its from a series taken in 1956. --Martin H. (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Foundation has endless funds, and each year there is a new issue of the series with awards speeches and Nobel lectures. For each laureate, there is a page with a studio portrait and a signature. Generally, those are the photos published on the Foundation's site. Now there are conflicting statements on when this photo was made. It still seems likely that this one was published 1953. In that case first published in Sweden, {{PD-Sweden}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the website is using different photos, taken in different times. The Fotothek (linked above via Europeana) owns the original meeting notices from Eschen and they do research with this notices, so there is not much reason to doubt this. --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why Fotothek (1956) would be more reliable than Ullstein (1964) or the Nobel foundation (1953). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because in 1972 they got the whole archive of the photographer including all original caption cards, albums, notices, etc. - And, as said above, the meeting notices of all meetings that the photographer had with famous people he portraied. --Martin H. (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wilson biographical dictionary of 1987 shows a different photo, courtesy of the Nobel foundation. This one actually looks a but too homely for Les Prix Nobel. I now ordered the edition for 1953 on interlibrary loan, give it a few days. But I am almost expecting that it will show a different portrait. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I went through Les Prix Nobel 1901-1920 with the following conclusions: their internet photos are always cropped and professionally cleaned up from the printed originals (which are often much poorer); they are usually the same, but not always. Thus your ordering is more than welcome (it is extremely difficult to find them online) - it will guide us to which photo can be marked as copyrighted in the Nobel year. Please check other Nobel photos which you can find (in those orders), where possible, and (re)tag. Also, the printed versions sometimes contain author details, which may clarify the contradictions existing on the web. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Delete Probably not cleaned up from the prints, but taken from the negatives. But the interlibrary loan finally arrived, and it has a different portrait of Staudinger. I will scan it when I get home, and I will also check all the other laureates in this binding (1951-1953). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good that you ordered that book. With the upload File:Hermann Staudinger.jpg: the author is badly wrong, the photo is not taken by "Nobel Foundation", remove that line from the upload. The license is likely wrong, as the Nobel Foundation said themself: such photo have been given to them at that time. Who gave it to them, the subject, the universities, I dont know, ask the Nobel Foundation. This means: They not created the photo, the photo was published already by the photographer selling it to the subject or the institution or whoever gave it to the Foundation. Im not sure if you can claim first publication in Sweden. --Martin H. (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And your source for all this knowledge is ...? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Martin: well, according to this, the Swedish copyright law also applies to photos first published in Sweden, not necessarily taken in Sweden or by Swedes. Thus a general note is that the authorship (say, mentioned by publishers) is often incorrect, or not necessarily relevant to the copyright status. Materialscientist (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume this. The same way you assume first publication in Sweden. I think my assumption is more in the bounds of possibility than your assumption is. Thats why I write it down. The statement by the Nobel Foundation is however repeated elsewhere, a statement regarding the Staudinger photo in particular wasnt obtained (although it would be very interesting to read what they write in answer to the wild guess that they are the photographer of the work) --Martin H. (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha, an assumption, that is quite a difference from "they said themselves that it had been given to them". Anyway, they were the copyright holders when it was still under copyright. Generally, they arranged for these photos to be made, it is like "author:Nasa". There is a difference with other photos in Les Prix Nobel that are reproduced "courtesy of". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pieter, where exactly did you get the information " Generally, they arranged for these photos to be made". Actually my comment refered to Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Steinbeck 1962.jpg - no, that part of my comment was not an assumption as I said! - and they say: "The photo was at one time provided to us for general usage. Unfortunately, we do not have any information on who the photographer is". Where do you have your information from, for the word "generally" in general and for this photo in particular. Provide your source. --Martin H. (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Delete. We've got three conflicting claims of copyright and production date from [1] [2] [3]. I personally doubt the 1st claim is correct, at least for the date (Eschen died in 1964 in Austria, and Staudinger was 83 then - i.e. 1964 is possible but unlikely). However, since Pieter managed to check Le Prix Nobel en 1953, I also see no evidence the image was first published in Sweden before 1969, thus there is no ground for PD-Sweden. Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested alternative image of Staudinger

If there is a problem with this photo, perhaps we can include instead the 1935 ETH photo which appears in the French article fr:Hermann Staudinger and about 20 other languages. It seems to have an authorization which is better documented. -Dirac66-

Deleted, no ground for PD-Sweden. Thuresson (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)