Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kolodeje n Luznici Villa Dill 1939.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:Kolodeje n Luznici Villa Dill 1939.jpg

Copyright unclear Lupo.aneth (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep A 1939 image is PD-EU, Tineye could not find anyone making an active copyright claim. --RAN (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Several years ago Lupo.aneth put this photo on Commons claiming it as 'own work' and releasing it with a cc-by-3.0 license. Later on the uploader is no longer sure about the copyright of this photo and nominated it above as "Copyright unclear". The original license seems to be no longer valid so we need another license or proof it is PD. RAN replied with "A 1939 image is PD-EU ..." which is a false statement. RAN claimed the author was not just unknown but it was anonymous [1] and in that same edit he put there a {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template. At COM:EVIDENCE, an official policy here at Commons, you can read: (background color for highlighting added):

“

In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: • the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and • that any required consent has been obtained.

”

So RAN was arguing for the file to be retained and according to that official policy here, the burden of proof for the 'PD-EU-no author disclosure' claim lies on him.

At least the following two conditions should be met before adding that template to this photo:

1. The photo has to be published before 1953
2. At that publication before 1953 the name of the photographer has not been disclosed (that is why the template name contains the words no author disclosure).

So far I don't see any attempt from him to explain why both conditions are met. So let's start with the first part. In what year or period prior to 1953 was this photo published and what is his proof for that year or period? - Robotje (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Case law has sided with, when an image leaves the custody of a photographer, it has been made available to the public. In cases where the image was not found in the wild, but in an archive as a negative, donated by a named photographer, we have generally ruled them unpublished until proven published. See, for instance: Category:Photographs by Walter Stoneman or Category:George Grantham Bain Collection, where we regard them unpublished until proven published. --RAN (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello RAN, your argument is about some case law, but you link to categories where I don't see any reference to a case law. That is not very convicing. Please give me a link to the case law so I can read more about it. Than you wrote something about "... we regard them unpublished until proven published." You added the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template which is only allowed if there is evidence it WAS published before 1953. If the rule is: we regard them unpublished until proven published, then that is even an extra reason to not make a pretty baseless claim the photo was published before 1953. So it looks like you need another template to argue for this photo to be retained. I randomly clicked on several of the photos in the two categories you linked above, and also in subcategories of those two categories, but none of them had a 'PD-EU-no author disclosure' template. I will remove that template. - Robotje (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have restored the 1939 date of the image, the date is baked into the image title, so I do not see why you would contest it. The previous date was the date of the upload. We all agree that the uploader was not the photographer in 1939, so I have again removed the name of the uploader as the creator. Tineye searched over 15 billion images and has not found this image attributed to any photographer. At this point you and I are just cutting and pasting arguments we have already made at previous debates, you with your yellow highlight. It is time to let a third party weigh in. Your cut and paste argument has been rejected multiple times already here and here and here. --RAN (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: No evidence of publication before 1953 provided which is necessary. The photo was created in 1939, yes but we need actual evidence of publication. Undelete in 2060. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)