Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Johnson in a photo booth.jpg
This file was initially tagged by Dtadaeng as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: All indications are that the photo is under current copyright contrary to unsourced info in file "Licensing" section. According to the citation provided by the uploader, the photo was first published in 1986 in Rolling Stone magazine. In 1990, it was included in the booklet accompanying the Columbia Records Robert Johnson CD box set The Complete Recordings, with the credit "Dime-store photo of Robert Johnson—early 1930s (p.4) © Stephen C. LaVere, 1986". In subsequent years, the photo was subject of lawsuits contesting the ownership of the copyright. On February 20, 2014, the Supreme Court of Mississippi issued a written decision favoring LaVere and detailing the litigation.[1] Nowhere in its decision is there a mention or assertion that the photo is in the public domain (if it was PD, there would be no copyright ownership issues and nothing to litigate). Unless there is a reliable source specifically confirming that this photo is in the public domain, it should be treated as currently being under copyright. maybe have a discussion first before deletion Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the page This photo is a self-published picture by Johnson taken before 1964 with no copyright renewal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright Correct me if I'm wrong but in the United States, someone owns the copyright to a photo once he takes it--not when someone else buys it later and puts it in print. The photo was published in the photobooth: it's irrelevant if someone else puts it in a magazine 50 years later. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright law is a complex and highly specialized field of law. There are no simple rules or formulas, especially in dealing with older material. It is best not to speculate what does or doesn't constitute "publishing" or what or when starts the clock ticking. For example, for many years Johnson's songs thought to be in the public domain, but the court decided as recently as 2000 that the copyrights belong to his estate (read the rational: ABKCO Music v. Stephen LaVere. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (June 26, 2000). Again, if the photo is in the public domain, why would Columbia Records (one of the biggest and oldest record companies) and the Supreme Court of Mississippi both identify the copyright holder as LaVere? Do you have a reliable source that apparently they don't? —Dtadaeng (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Here are some additional reliable sources (besides the two cited in the Request for speedy deletion) regarding the dime-store photo and copyrights:
- AllMusic Steve LaVere biography (undated): "After determining that Johnson's feebly established publishing rights had not actually tumbled into the black hole of the public domain, LaVere worked out an agreement with people considered to be members of Johnson's surviving family."[2]
- Los Angeles Times Oct. 8, 1995: "To top it off, the photographs of Johnson LaVere got from Spencer [a Johnson heir] are the only two in circulation ... And reproductions of those images are zealously guarded by LaVere."[3]
- Rolling Stone Dec. 21, 2011: "Crumb's drawing from an iconic photo [Johnson's dime-store photo] of blues legend Robert Johnson caused more headaches than he'd bargained for. Steve LaVere, who claims rights to much of Johnson's work, threatened to sue the artist for copying the image. 'He's extremely litigious. I got a summons to appear in court – oh, God, it was awful. I said, "You can't claim ownership of my drawing."' Advised that he'd probably win in court but it might cost him $100,000, Crumb agreed to settle."[4]
- Huffington Post June 28, 2012: Caption in article next to dime-store photo – "(Robert Johnson took this self-portrait in a photo booth in the early 1930s. © 1986 Delta Haze Corporation, all rights reserved; used by permission)."[5] (Delta Haze is one of LaVere's companies.)
—Dtadaeng (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Dtadaeng: Thanks. I'd like to see this be a test case, honestly because this is ridiculous but you've obviously done the legwork here and courts have sided with the most ridiculous interpretation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Koavf, in the U.S., the courts decide legal issues. No one has been able to successfully challenge Johnson's estate's and LaVere's claim of copyright. I think that the copyrights to Johnson's songs would have made a much better test case, but the U.S. Supreme Court decided to let the Court of Appeals ruling that they belong to the estate stand (see ABKCO v. LaVere cited above). Most importantly for Wiki purposes, reliable sources indicate that the photo (and the rest of Johnson's work) is not in the public domain. Your original research has led you to a different conclusion and is not supported by reliable sources. One may feel that someone is guilty of a crime or a contract is void, however, since it is the courts that decide such matters, other views are irrelevant. —Dtadaeng (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: reliable sources indicate that the photo (and the rest of Johnson's work) is not in the public domain., per discussion Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
