Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jüri Antsmaa.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:Jüri Antsmaa.jpg

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep PD-EU for a 1915 image from Estonia, you can fix in the time it took to nominate. --RAN (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Can you please explain the evidence you are using to support the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} licence you added? Specifically, the template requires that "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication." Suggesting the nominator can source this evidence "in the time it took to nominate" is not a fair comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• You cannot prove a negative, the best we can do is perform due diligence. Tineye looked at over 15 billion images and did not find anyone making an active copyright claim. Nor did it find an attributed photographer. Google image search performed the same search and returned the same results. The search took a few nanoseconds. --RAN (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing either way on this one but I would note that your TinEye argument is fundamentally flawed. Several times I have used TinEye and got zero matches, only for me to find the image on Getty images (or similar site). Yes, it claims to search billions of files but if it can't find a match in a popular stock photo site, it can't be seen as particularly reliable for proving an image is free of copyright. Also, TinEye searches don't always work well with matching crops to a more complete source. Finally, using an online only search provides no information about copyright details from a physical work - the source may record the photographer's name and we would never know (as the uploader gave no source details other than claiming it as own work). From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• The best we can due is perform due diligence. Almost all copyright jurisdictions allow a clawback from the public domain should a named creator be found while the copyright period is still active. I also never said I only used Tineye, I also said I used Google Image Search, which does search through Getty. You can always argue that if I just keep searching a little bit more, I may find and active copyright claimant or a named creator, but that fear, uncertainty, and doubt argument can be used on every image using this license. You can also endlessly play the "what if game". Who took the picture? It must be the named photographer, right? What if the photographer was in the bathroom, and an assistant pressed the shutter release. What if the photographer's spouse pressed the shutter release while the photographer adjusted a light. What if a monkey entered the photo studio while the photographer, their spouse, and the photographer's assistant, were inattentive and the monkey pressed the shutter release. What if the camera was on a random timer, and no one was responsible for pressing the shutter release.

---

Deleted: per nomination, Can be undeleted in 2041 as PD-old-assumed. We need evidence of a reasonable search to find the author, which cannot be done with the internet alone. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)