Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piotr Zajlich 1-K-12022.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 licence says the image had to be published without copyright notice. The source given in file description is an archive and the archive says it's from collection of newspaper but doesn't say when and if it was published. And this ain't the only file from NAC without real source given. Plushy (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is not true: "Data wydarzenia: 1918 - 1928". Tomasz Wachowski (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep If the archival institution doesnt know the author, it means the photo has no copyright restriction on it. According to Polish copyright law before 1994, photo gained copyright when author put copyright restriction on negative or positive *before* publication. Publication only serves as a source for Commons; information from NAC about photo creation means actually that template {{Anonymous-EU}} can be used instead of current one. A.J. (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the photo could be a part of a copyrighted publication, in which case the copyright of the publication holds over the photo too, if it was the only publication the photo was included in. Additionally, would this not pass as an orphan work if next to nothing is known as far as the author, his lifespan and possible copyright handovers go? Wpedzich (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are still assuming that the photo was published over 70 years ago, it could have spent the whole time in the archives and been published only recently by NAC.Plushy (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I stronly emphasise the fact, that for copyright protection for photos before 1994 tr prerequisite was "clear copyright notice", not publication. Lack of clear copyright notice means photo is not copyrighted; published or not. Template text is misleading here and probably should be corrected. A.J. (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's more like "publication without clear copyright notice in Poland".Plushy (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I stronly emphasise the fact, that for copyright protection for photos before 1994 tr prerequisite was "clear copyright notice", not publication. Lack of clear copyright notice means photo is not copyrighted; published or not. Template text is misleading here and probably should be corrected. A.J. (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is not correct; copyright for collective works or derivative works exists separately and do not affect original work, but this is irrelevant because we discuss single photo there, not as part of collection or derivative work. Polish copyright law does not define "orphan" works, but copyright span for unpublished anonymous works counts from pl:"ustalenie" (roughly translated as "creation"). A.J. (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
