Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kubrick-2001-68.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.
No evidence provided to support the claim that it was published without a copyright notice. We can't simply assume that all publicity still photographs were published as such. See discussion at the Copyright Village Pump. Damiens.rf 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Current state of discussion is at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Publicity_still_copyrights. Link above is to older version of discussion--WickerGuy (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Some evidence of the absence of copyright has been provided by uploader User:Wikiwatcher1 though it may be insufficient. Uploader has stated book from which photo was taken and noted that said book had no copyright notice on photo. However, although the photo was taken prior to 1977, the book was published after that. It is highly likely this is not the first publication of the photograph, and that earlier copies of same photo can be found.
Generally, published books on the films of Stanley Kubrick have copyright notices on the photoes that are actual frames from the films but do not have copyright notices on the on set shots of actors or the director working. See Kubrick by Michel Ciment, Stanley Kubrick Directs by Alexander Walker and Stanley Kubrick: Visual Poet by Paul Duncan.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The original complaint conflates (and I think confuses) two issues. First, how do we know that this particular photo is either a publicity photo, and or otherwise public domain? Second, are publicity photos in general public domain? Actually, I think we are pretty safe on the second one- copyright experts DO think publicity photos are public domain. But it is problematic to presume a photo is a publicity photo with only modest evidence- rather than going for "preponderance" of evidence we should have solid proof.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- We're not safe at all in relation to the second one. Even the idea that publicity photos are public domain is a misinterpretation of one legal case and the usual failure in distinguishing free as in beer from free as in speech. User:Carnildo sums it up very well. --Damiens.rf 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Similar to my argument at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Douglas-Kubrick-Spartacus.JPG, there is no proof that the first publication of the photograph failed to comply with copyright laws. Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
