Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord Runciman.jpg

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.

File:Lord Runciman.jpg

[edit]

The 1935 image of Walter Runciman is still copyrighted in the US. The UK law restored the image's UK copyright in 1995. In 1996, the image was still copyrighted in the UK, so the US's URAA automatically restored the image's US copyright. Per other DR discussion, reluctance to enforce global policies and laws is not sufficient grounds to keep this image anymore. Meanwhile, there are other images of Walter Runciman on Commons. George Ho (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The image was taken by a company called Bassano Ltd and Bassano closed in the 1960's. Therefore it is near enough impossible to find the photographer for this image, as if the National Portrait Galley, which has one of the largest collections in the world, does not know the name of the original author then unfortunately it has been lost to time.[1] I am showing the deleting editor (George Ho) evidence, that supports my using of the PD-UK-unknown licence, including these previously unsuccessful deletion requests surrounding Bassano Ltd photos: [[2]] & [[3]], which had been kept by the administrators @Yann & @Magog the Ogre, as the original uploaders of those images had demonstrated that npg.org.uk is one of the most accurate and detailed image databases and if they don't know the author, of the Bassano work, then it is not known. Therefore the licence of PD-UK-unknown is both accurate and correct for this image. PicMonkies (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment PD-UK-unknown is not enough. See COM:L: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." I accept that the file is PD in the UK; you have not demonstrated that it is PD in the US. In fact, it is copyrighted in the US until 2031. It became PD in the UK on January 1, 1986, but its copyright was restored on January 1, 1996. It became PD again in the UK in 2006. However, because it was copyrighted in the UK in 1996, it is also Not-PD-US-URAA until 2031. Please see the Hirtle chart: works published solely abroad 1924 through 1977 by a foreign national without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date, are copyrighted in the US for 95 years after publication date. Since this photograph dates from 1935, that's 2031. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrburke (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 January 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where it was copyrighted again in 1996, as I have checked and there is no evidence of it being copyrighted then. PicMonkies (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1935 + 60 = 1995. One more year, so you'll get "1996". If that's not enough, here are the w:en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom (Current (1988) law and some links) and then w:en:Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the Act and a link about non-US works). Does the above count as evident enough? If not, then I don't know what else to convince you. George Ho (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the United Kingdom in the table at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. --Rrburke (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho the links you sent clearly state that images are out of copyright if they are 70 years after the author died. however, we don't know who the author was since they worked for Bassano Ltd. Therefore licence of PD-UK-unknown is both accurate and correct for this image. PicMonkies (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't commented on the USA copyright yet. Do you think it is or is not relevant? George Ho (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PicMonkies: Would you consider taking a moment to have a look at Commons:Canvassing? --Rrburke (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PicMonkies: Thanks for the ping, it is an interesting case, but I do not think that I have sufficient knowledge about the UK copyright law to know if the images was restored. I see the claim that it has been, if it were restored before the URAA date, then it is true that it would still be copyrighted in the US. Currently I would vote  Neutral and try to read up on this more. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A mere allegation that URAA applies cannot be a reason for deletion. (I could go off on a tangent about President Trump's threats to withdraw from the WTO and thus render the URAA moot but I won't) Abzeronow (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me what's being distinguished here from a "mere allegation". At any rate, my overarching point would be that I've yet to hear an argument for why this file should be considered PD in the US. COM:EVID is pretty clear that "the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate ... that the file is in the public domain". I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. --Rrburke (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious reason would be that it was published in the US at the time. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence to that effect would be most welcome. Is there any? --Rrburke (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image was created in 1935 and we have no evidence to suggest that it is not in the public domain, especially when it is already in the public domain in the Uk. Therefore why would it not be in the public domain in the US in 1935. You have no evidence to prove that it wasn't in the public domain, whereas I have evidence to show that it was in the public domain, especially in the UK. PicMonkies (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, as it was not published before 1924 it is not considered free in the US and therefore is not considered free on wikipedia. It could only be used on wikipedia under fair-use but the article it is being used in already contains a free image of the subject that was created in 1916, so fair-use is not merited. Secondly, there is some misunderstanding of the role of the npg regarding authorship. As a general rule, the NPG does not research portrait authorship beyond identifying studio, so it would be misleading to assume that they have or have not carried out research on any image credited to a studio. Thirdly, the NPG has made this image available for use on wikipedia under the educational use licence but wikipedia currently prefers to adhere to free use policies. 05:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Graemp
  • I am confused by what you said about the NPG and researching as it is actually incorrect, as they are known to carry out extensive research on the various images, portraits, items etc that they have. Also we have no proof that this image wasn't in the public domain in the US. PicMonkies (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no obligation to prove the image is not in the public domain. The onus runs in the opposite direction: "the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate ... that the file is in the public domain." If you are aware of any such evidence, please assist the progress of this DR by bringing it forward. --Rrburke (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image was created in 1935 and we have no evidence to suggest that it is not in the public domain, especially when it is already in the public domain in the Uk. Therefore why would it not be in the public domain in the US in 1935. PicMonkies (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: What was its copyright status in the UK on January 1, 1996? --Rrburke (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, every file in Commons needs a free license for the United States. So far nobody has shown suitable license. PD-UK-unknown is only half of work and it seems to me, that the other half is impossible to find. So the file is deleted and will be restored in 2031. Taivo (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lord_Runciman.jpg&oldid=353186983"