Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince Charles after receiving his wings.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Copyright notice at source: https://www.rct.uk/collection/exhibitions/hrh-the-prince-of-wales-an-exhibition-to-celebrate-his-sixtieth-birthday/prince-charles-after-receiving-his-wings. The Royal Collection's copyright policy makes no mention of Crown Copyright: https://www.rct.uk/about/policies/copyright, DrKay (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- It was published prior to 1974. Cliffmore (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can accept that it was published in 1971, but that still means that it is copyrighted until 2042 in the UK because copyright on works by unknown photographers lasts for 70 years from publication. In the US, it will be copyrighted for 95 years. There is no evidence, and indeed there is contrary evidence, that it is Crown copyright. The source page says that it is not. DrKay (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not accurate. The Royal Collection, "acquired by HM Queen Elizabeth II" is the copyright holder. The individual photographer may be unknown but the copyright holder is not. And as such, the expiry date has already taken effect. Cliffmore (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The en:provenance has nothing to do with the copyright. There is a copyright notice at the source. There is no indication anywhere that it is Crown copyright. The Royal Collection Trust is not the Crown. It is a registered charity. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's not accurate. The Royal Collection, "acquired by HM Queen Elizabeth II" is the copyright holder. The individual photographer may be unknown but the copyright holder is not. And as such, the expiry date has already taken effect. Cliffmore (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can accept that it was published in 1971, but that still means that it is copyrighted until 2042 in the UK because copyright on works by unknown photographers lasts for 70 years from publication. In the US, it will be copyrighted for 95 years. There is no evidence, and indeed there is contrary evidence, that it is Crown copyright. The source page says that it is not. DrKay (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
