Commons:Deletion requests/File:London-slum-1880s.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.
The only evidence that the photograph is dated 1880 is the assertion of the uploader. There is no source, no verifiable date, no certainty as to whether there may be a named photographer. The only independent source I can find is Alamy, where Paul Fearn probably uploaded the image from Wikimedia Commons and now demands £11.99 for personal use.
After being hosted on Wikimedia Commons for six months, this is a case study of how {{PD-old-assumed}} is being used as a substitute for an attempt to make a reasonable effort to assess copyright status. Fæ (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep Any photo older than 120 years is presumed to be in the Public Domain by the US Copyright Office. Google Images says the version at http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-london-slum-1880s-163328681.html is "1300 × 1046", so Alamy must have independent information. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Internally, Alamy gives a different resolution that the one you have given here (1843x1356), but for all we know this is a badly scaled up version of the Commons image, a trick we have seen before. The point being that Alamy is an image collation service, not a source, and frequently acts as a mirror for Wikimedia Commons. The Photograph was highly likely to have been originally published in the UK, not the USA. We do not ignore UK law. There remains no evidence for the assertion that this was taken in the 1880s. --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have added a note as requested on the image page. We used this image from an official file as part of a Crown Estate presentation about Octavia Hill. My own belief is that it shows the original Marylebone property in the 1860s before Hill took it on, but if memory serves (I have retired from the public service) there was no conclusive documentation of date on the file, and the official photographer was uncredited (as was standard practice). Tim riley (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- If the photograph were part of an official survey, it should be possible to confirm that the photograph was taken to become part of a public archive (i.e. "published" under UK law) and that the photographer never was credited, so the normal {{PD-old-70-1923}} is easily met and can be used. If the collection is at the NA, then the whole collection might be something to track down and have released to Wikimedia Commons via one of the wiki-projects based there. --Fæ (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have added a note as requested on the image page. We used this image from an official file as part of a Crown Estate presentation about Octavia Hill. My own belief is that it shows the original Marylebone property in the 1860s before Hill took it on, but if memory serves (I have retired from the public service) there was no conclusive documentation of date on the file, and the official photographer was uncredited (as was standard practice). Tim riley (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Internally, Alamy gives a different resolution that the one you have given here (1843x1356), but for all we know this is a badly scaled up version of the Commons image, a trick we have seen before. The point being that Alamy is an image collation service, not a source, and frequently acts as a mirror for Wikimedia Commons. The Photograph was highly likely to have been originally published in the UK, not the USA. We do not ignore UK law. There remains no evidence for the assertion that this was taken in the 1880s. --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: {{PD-old-assumed}} is fine here. --Yann (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
