Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Jean Tatlock in her 20s.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.
This photo, said to be from the late 1930s (but also from an unknown date) and showing an American woman who died in 1944 (therefore presumably of American origin), was uploaded with an unsuitable {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}} license tag. The photographer/author is claimed to be unknown or rather inconnu(e), so you can't use a PD-old-70 tag, which would be the wrong tag for a US photo anyway.
The photo might be PD-US of some kind (no notice, not renewed ...), but to be able to determine that, we'd need more information and context about the first publication of this photo, when, where, how. If we don't get that, the file should be deleted and be restored in 2065 with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Rosenzweig τ 07:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean Tatlock.png, same photograph as a PNG file. --Rosenzweig τ 10:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep Copyright in the USA was not automatic until 1989, to be eligible for a copyright you needed to have a copyright symbol on each perceivable copy like this: Category:Bain copyright notice and then you needed to register for a copyright, and then you had to renew that copyright up until 1964. I cannot find any image labeled "Jean Tatlock" or "Tatlock" in either the copyright registration database of the copyright renewal database. File:Jean Tatlock.png should be restored, the license should have been corrected instead of deleting the image. --RAN (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
-20240208132200-Rosenzweig-20240208074900){kind=link}
- Just searching for the photo itself is not sufficient. The first publication also could have been as part of a book, magazine or newspaper with a copyright notice. As long as we still don't know anything about when/where/how this was published first, we can't really tell if it is copyrighted or not. --Rosenzweig τ 13:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- The book that's the immediate source (https://archive.org/details/atomiclovestorye0000stre/page/178/) cites the photo, among a lot of others of Jean Tatlock, as coming from the "Tatlock Family Photographs, Courtesy of John Tatlock". My guess is that it was never published, unfortunately. so as much as I regret to do so, I have to concur with the verdict of deleting it.
- I tried in vain to find any online scans of 30s Vassar College yearbooks on a hunch that this came from one of those but no dice. ATOMICMOLOCH (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the first publication was in that 2013 book, we're in {{PD-US-unpublished}} territory. That means in the public domain 120 years after creation, unless there's a known photographer who is known to have died over 70 years ago. So it looks like 2065 remains the year for undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just searching for the photo itself is not sufficient. The first publication also could have been as part of a book, magazine or newspaper with a copyright notice. As long as we still don't know anything about when/where/how this was published first, we can't really tell if it is copyrighted or not. --Rosenzweig τ 13:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
-20240208132200){kind=link}
- Pre-1978 publication is murky in the United States, if the photograph was hidden away in a box until 2013, I can see a copyright problem, but we also have U. S. case law that states pre-1978 that a photograph leaving the custody of the original photographer could constitute publication. I
Oppose restoration of the .png since jpg is the proper file format for a photograph and png is not. Abzeronow (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Pre-1978 publication is murky in the United States, if the photograph was hidden away in a box until 2013, I can see a copyright problem, but we also have U. S. case law that states pre-1978 that a photograph leaving the custody of the original photographer could constitute publication. I
-20240208132200){kind=link}
- " proper file format for a photograph" the JPG uses lossy compressed and the PNG format uses lossless compression. I would say that the png fornmat wins.
- As far as I remember that "leaving the custody of the original photographer" bit applied to professional photographers, at least if they were paid for the photograph, perhaps also without payment. But is that a photo by a professional photographer? It looks a bit amateurish to me. --Rosenzweig τ 19:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- What I remembered came from User:Clindberg's contribution in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. If this photo was taken by a photo studio, we could probably consider it published in 1944 or earlier. If it was not taken by a photo studio (and it looks like that to me), it was probably unpublished until 2013. --Rosenzweig τ 12:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's more of leaving the custody of the original photographer's family, I think. Losing copyright through publication without notice required an actual physical copy to be distributed to someone without a notice. If the photo remained in the family until 2013 then it was unpublished until then. If it was from a professional studio there is more argument, but I can't see enough evidence for that. As an aside, no problem with keeping an original PNG -- those are better quality than JPG, though they don't thumbnail as efficiently. If the PNG was created from a jpg though there is no point. Original scans in lossless PNG and TIFF are welcome (if public domain or licensed of course). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately there is not clear information about first publication; lacking that, COM:PCP applies. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
