Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Paul II.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.
Freedom of this graphic is quite doubtful. Seems to be in public domain in Italy, but URAA act restored copyright in US. As much as I see there is not enough information to decide what the Hirtle chart says about it. Same situation here ptjackyll (leave a message) 19:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Please note. This file has a derivative version, Ellywa (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion, see here. Pinging @Yann as the admin who reviewed that DR.
- On top of that, the user @Red-tailed hawk was able to find a website that appears to claim that the image was released under CC-BY-3.0 at one point, which might make the image free under a different license anyway. Fotografia Felici was a Rome-based photography company that apparently closed in 2015, but their old website appears to be a java applet for a good part of its history so the internet archive doesn't really let him/her peak in. There are other photographs on Commons, such as File:Besuch_bei_Papst_Joh._Paul_-_Foto_Felici_Roma_k.jpg, that appear to be released under CC-BY 3.0 and have the same company as its source, so it's plausible that the photograph might actually be released under CC-BY-3.0, even if the photos were copyrighted in the United States. But, in that case, the only requirement would be that we give attribution to them in the derivative work; there isn't a sharealike requirement and we could very simply remedy this by making explicit attribution in the summary rather than by deleting the file.
- Either way this is sliced, it is very unlikely that hosting this image on Commons would constitute a copyright violation.
- 83.61.243.178 10:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The original comment given by @Red-tailed hawk is availale here 83.61.243.178 10:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- You are misrepresenting policy. The consensus is that A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. Here the conclusion that the URAA applies comes after specific investigation. You can challenge the conclusion, but you can't simply dismiss it. Xover (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Luckily on Commons there is no such thing as case law. There is no evidence that it was published in US within 30 days after first publication, so it should be assumed that it's not public domain. ptjackyll (leave a message) 19:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Actually I think that the license is wrong. The photo is an official one from Vatican City, where rights of the photos of the popes are reserved. In other words, Italian law doesn't apply because it was a work for hire of an Italian photographer for another state. --Ruthven (msg) 13:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: According with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vatican City, Vatican law supplements the Italian Copyright Act (l. 633, 6 April 1941), which applies in the territory of the Holy See. However, there is a website which appears to claim that the image was released under CC-BY-3.0 at one point. 83.61.243.178 20:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- See Vatican City copyright law Art. 3.3.
- Italiano: Salvo che ciò sia giustificato da scopi religiosi, culturali, didattici o scientifici e salvo che sia collegato a fatti, avvenimenti o cerimonie pubbliche o che si svolgono in pubblico, l’immagine del Romano Pontefice non può essere esposta, riprodotta, diffusa o messa in commercio senza il Suo consenso, espresso a mezzo degli Organismi competenti, i quali sono tenuti ad informare, nei casi di maggiore importanza, la Segreteria di Stato.
- In other words, the publication of the image of the Pope is restricted. Ruthven (msg) 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: According with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vatican City, Vatican law supplements the Italian Copyright Act (l. 633, 6 April 1941), which applies in the territory of the Holy See. However, there is a website which appears to claim that the image was released under CC-BY-3.0 at one point. 83.61.243.178 20:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I am not sure if the publication of this image is restricted currently by the Holy See (when it appears in Alamy where it was apparently uploaded by the Felici studio and according with the original document, dated in 2002, was published during the pontificate of John Paul II, who appears to had supported the use of this image for those documents, and it is very possible that this portrait has been used in similar documents since the early years of pontificate). However, this isn't appear to be a "simple photograph", but a work for hire, and for that is protected by copyright until the expiration of 70 years post mortem auctoris or first publication. Also support the deletion of the original document. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.146.182.109 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and 193.146 above. --Xover (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The picture was attributed to Foto Felici Roma back in 2016 https://web.archive.org/web/20160424221726/http://blog.theotokos.co.za/?attachment_id=980 by "Stephen Korsman" who runs this blog stating "CC-BY-3.0 or CC-BY-3.0". The credit section https://blog.theotokos.co.za/?page_id=149 lists "CC-BY-3.0 or CC-BY-3.0". I see no evidence that he received the copyright of Foto Felici Roma or had them agree to freely license this picture under either of these licenses - the alamy source does not show a free license. The publication evidence I can see is that it is part of a 2002 congratulatory message to the Collegio A. Volta in Italy. Absent proof this and File:Papa centenario.jpg shoud be deleted. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I managed to send an email to the blog owner politely asking for proof that Foto Felici Roma agreed to license the file under the given license. Hekerui (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)