Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nathan Wyburn with Tom Moore Foot Painting MNT 0057.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:Nathan Wyburn with Tom Moore Foot Painting MNT 0057.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original photograph used to create this artwork was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under the public domain. This artwork also falls under public domain at the request of the artist (if I need to put this through OTRS, I can ask the artist to do so). I can't find the original photo anywhere on here anymore so if that's the reason why you're requesting deletion then I guess that's fair. Mthowells200130 (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the original photograph used is File=Tom_Moore_(soldier).jpg. This is no longer on Wikimedia Commons for some reason, and I can't find out why it was deleted. If anyone can investigate and find info out, please let me know. But as I was the one who sourced the image for the artist, I wholeheartedly confirm that the image was released under public domain. The image was used in the infobox on Captain Tom as of 16 April 2020. See this edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Tom&type=revision&diff=951055243&oldid=951054539&diffmode=source. Mthowells200130 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The release from the artist is verifiable at archive of artist website, this being one of two photos released CC-BY-SA-4.0. So the artwork release and the photo-of-the-artwork can be verified.
@Ellin Beltz: would you consider undeleting File:Tom Moore (soldier).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) as the speedy deletion as a copyvio can now be considered challenged and should be considered part of this DR outcome. Per the comment at VP/C by @Clindberg: , the service photo may be validly hosted as {{PD-UKGov}}, if the detail checks out. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: : Sorry, I was too slow to fix this. No problem that it is being fixed! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: , I do believe the photo was under that licence template - {{PD-UKGov}}, I think you've got that correct. It looks familiar, plus lots of sources state the photo is of the subject in WW2 (so before the dates listed in the template). Mthowells200130 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This may be, however we often find that WW2 service portraits are challenged from private collections because it's hard to prove that a photograph was a "service photo", such as might be taken by an Army photographer, rather than a soldier paying a private photographer for their portrait in their off-duty time even though they are in uniform. My view is that as a community we tend to be overly hard-line on this particular issue, and consequently probably ask for literally impossible evidence for these shots, when even if the photographer was a commercial service, the copyright even then probably expired 70 years after being taken, due to the photographer being a named studio rather than a named photographer. The most relevant argument in that case is whether the doubt is "significant" or in practical terms underneath that threshold per COM:PRP.
Anyway, good work on your part navigating this process and informing the deletion request. --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted and added to this nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Examining the original upload (2 versions) and the sources, we can verify that these good quality sources exist, and they attribute Tom Moore as the donor of the photo and the subject, and there have been no claims of copyright in these publications by anyone. Further the artist's website for the painting, confirm that the artist and Tom Moore have agreed to release any possible rights they are aware of under a CC-BY-SA license. The above arguments are reasonable, and the hypothetical issues with copyright seem sufficiently under the "significant doubt" required to fail COM:PRP. Lastly, this is very much in the spotlight, there should be a reasonable burden on anyone arguing to delete this highly educational photograph from Commons to make a more than hypothetical case, such as providing records that a non-British Army photography studio took the photograph, based on further research, or interview statements with Tom Moore. --Fæ (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Fae, especially if Tom Moore is also releasing any possible rights of his. The underlying photo may well be {{PD-UKGov}}, which would be fine. If it was a private portrait, odds are that it is {{PD-UK-unknown}} by now, and failing that (meaning the author is named on the photo) odds are nearly certain Tom Moore owns the copyright (the UK considered the commissioner the owner of commissioned-for-pay works back then, and even some today though more limited), and that would also cover any U.S. rights restored by the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nathan_Wyburn_with_Tom_Moore_Foot_Painting_MNT_0057.jpg&oldid=429506803"