Commons:Deletion requests/File:JakeHoover1894.png

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.

According to en:Yogo sapphire#History (en:Special:PermanentLink/495827477#History), this is a wedding photo of Jake Hoover. It says that the photo was taken in 1894 and that the source is a book published "circa 1985". Wedding photos are normally private photos and thus unlikely to be published, so to me it sounds entirely possible that the 1985 publication was the first one ever. Looking at COM:HIRTLE, it says that works first published between 1978 and 1989 which were created before 1978 are copyrighted for "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047". Thus, if the 1985 publication was the earliest one, it seems that this photo is copyrighted until the end of 2047. Stefan4 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. Wedding portraits are known for their quality. Obviously, we are dealing with a poor copy produced by some ancient replication process, i.e. an old publication. Materialscientist (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Per MS but note I'm the uploader. PumpkinSky talk 21:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Individual had a significant, if indirect, role in Montana history, both as a mentor to the young cowboy who became the renowned western artist CM Russell, and for Hoover's own role in the discovery of the Yogo sapphire, given the sapphire's status as Montana's state gemstone. Historically significant image of a historically significant individual. Montanabw (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unless we have proof of prior publication, we must assume that c1985 was the first publication. That the subject is historically significant is not relevant to the discussion as we are dealing with copyrights, not scope issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]