Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sobo 1909 260.png

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:Sobo 1909 260.png

[edit]

This was previously (mistakenly) labeled as being the work of Johannes Sobotta, who died in 1945. That would have made this PD in its home country of Germany next year. However, it turns out that the illustrations were prepared by K. Hajek and A. Schmitson; I have not been able to find their dates of death, and thus under the precautionary principle I believe this should be deleted as non-free in the country of first publication, Germany.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, this was published before 1923 in the United States, and the copyright is specifically attributed to Johannes Sobotta-not the illustrators. CFCF (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note: Commons' licensing policy clearly states that an image must be free in both the US and its country of origin. The book (in German) and illustration were both first published in Germany. As such, Commons requires the German copyright to have expired before the illustration can be included. The English Wikipedia, meanwhile, accepts images that are only free in the US ("While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries."). Hence the transfer of the file to the English Wikipedia. I'm not disputing that the file is free in the US. However, unless both illustrators died in 1944 or earlier (quite possible, but not yet confirmed) it is not free in Germany - and thus, not free enough for Commons. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edition is published in the United States, not Germany. The copyright has expired on the entire work including additions, not only additions. CFCF (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not using the German published version, we are using the US published version. If it was not published in the US before 1923 you might have a point but it was. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is at it's height mentioned as a general rule of thumb, it doesn't seem applicable here. Also a more relevant section is:

If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication.

Seeing as this is just that, it should have lapsed into the Public Domain ~50 years ago.
CFCF (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep unless further concerns can be justified per "In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is disputing that the copyright in the US is expired. The issue is that this illustration was first published in Germany, as implied in the nominating statement but only stated explicitly now, in response to Blueraspberry's comment; see the 1904 German edition. Commons' licensing requirements preclude the possibility of hosting an image that is free in the US but not the country of original publication (in this case, Germany). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone track down when the illustrators died? Sizeofint (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that it is the country of publication that matters, the laws on derivative works are in this case irrelevant. CFCF (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the country of first publication of this image was Germany. The American version came later, which is what makes the principle of the derivative work relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. Commons' licensing policy is unambiguous on this: "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." (emphasis mine). First publication of the illustration was in Germany; the American version came later. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But this work was published in the United States, and having lapsed into the public domain in the United States it has also done so worldwide. It is a US-work, not a non–US work. CFCF (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The country of first publication is what matters here, and that's something you have yet to understand. Can you in good faith say that the illustration in the German edition is not the same illustration (minus, perhaps, a few changes to the labels), as the American publication? The book itself was first published in German in Germany. The translation is a derivative work; the author did not write all entirely new text for it. The illustrations themselves were likewise previously published. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete unless the original German version can be shown to be PD in Germany. The American edition is a derivative work of the German, and so we need to consider both American and German copyright. The American is fine, but absent a date of death for the illustrators we cannot determine the German to be PD. (Above CFCF claims that Sobotta is the copyright holder - would need support for this claim, but if that's true the work is definitely not PD for a few more months). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the front matter for copyrightholder. It is not the illustators. CFCF (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...in which case this definitely isn't PD. If the copyright holder had been the illustrators there'd at least be a chance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that can be specified about derivative works is that they do not prolong copyright of the underlying work. The publication of an American edition makes that edition public domain in the entire world (excluding countries which do not apply the rule of the shorter term). That argument is irrelevant. CFCF (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if the version we are using was published in the United States (which it was), than the source country is the United States. And thus all it would need to be is PD in the US and the source country which is the US. The En version was not published in Germany. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the En version is derived from the one that is published in Germany, so we do have to consider its status if the image is to be kept on Commons. If it's only on English Wikipedia, it's PD-US, no problem. But "The publication of an American edition makes that edition public domain in the entire world" is not true when the American edition draws material from something that is not public domain in the entire world. Creating a new version doesn't change the copyright term of the original, but it also doesn't eliminate it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from what I glean reading en:derivative work, the illustration retains the 1904 copyright and German origin. The text labels are new to the 1906 version published in the US so they have a 1906 copyright and US origin. Curiously the labels are definitely PD in Germany while we are uncertain if the illustration itself is. Sizeofint (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The labels are probably too simple to claim copyright over (in Germany and the US, at least) in any case; standard anatomical names in a simple font. It is the underlying illustration (which is definitely not PD-simple) which is at question. If copyright belongs to Sobotta, the illustration is in copyright in the country of first publication (i.e. Germany) until 1 January 2016. If the copyright belongs to the illustrators (which, generally speaking, is much more common), we don't have anything firm enough to claim PD status of this work, unless we can track down the dates of deaths of the illustrators. One or both could have lived well past 1944. If, say, the last one to die did so in 1955, this could be copyrighted in Germany until 2026 (PD-70 for works with more than one copyright holder being calculated from the date of death of the last said holder to die). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an entirely incorrect interpretation of derivative works and their implications on international copyright. In addition this is likely not even be a derivative work as it is published by the same author as the German edition, and American copyright law applies in its entirety for the whole work. Once that has expired the work is public domain worldwide. CFCF (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read Commons' definition of country of origin: "the country where the work was first published". Unless my maths are off, 1904 (the German edition) is before 1909 (the American edition), and this illustration itself was included in the 1904 edition. As such, the illustration was first published in 1904. It's very simple.
Again, nobody is disputing that the image is free in the US; hence why the image has been migrated to the English Wikipedia. The issue at hand is that Commons requires works to be free in both the US (where the servers are hosted) and in the country of origin (where the work was first published), and this illustration is probably not public domain in the country where it was first published (Germany). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating that, but show no indication of where it is from. Again, this was published in the United States, and it is very legally dubious to require proof that something has not been published anywhere else prior to that. This invalidates all US PD 1923 and all US PD 1923-1968 works on grounds of the precautionary principle that they may have a prior international edition that is not known. Rules can be changed, especially those that don't adhere to any sort of common sense or legal reasoning. CFCF (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the illustrators are unknown (or you cannot find them) than it is 100 after publication under German and Austrian law. This was published in 1904. The author that is known died in 1945. Therefore 70 years after their death it is public domain. Therefore this work in PD in 2 months in Germany even if we apply these rules. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they aren't, it is never specified who created this image. Only that at least one out of three illustrators took part. CFCF (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great User talk:Crisco 1492 since you "know" them. What are their first and middle names? And where were they born? Would help others find the dates of death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that a German illustrator is anonymous, then you get problems with de:Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht)#Frühere Rechtslage in Deutschland / Übergangsrecht which states that the copyright term still is 70 years from the death of the illustrator if the illustration was made before 1 July 1995. If it was made on 1 July 1994 or later, then you only get the term specified in {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't believe that there is a strong case for this image still having copyright. Unless the children or grandchildren of the illustrators post something on the image talk page there is no reason for us to build a hypothetical scenario where there could still be copyright.. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is: the precautionary principle. We cannot in good faith assume this is PD in Germany when something so important for determining copyright status as the artists' dates of death is unknown. And if the illustration's copyright was owned by the book's author (as claimed above), it's definitely still copyrighted in Germany. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that this image has lapsed into the public domain worldwide. That the German edition "might'" not isn't enough reason to remove the American edition on dubious grounds. CFCF (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chris the goal of the Wikimedia projects is not to delete the largest number of images possible based on some unusual interpretation of copyright law. The precautionary principle requires at least more than a exceedingly very very small chance of concern which is not the case in this situation. Has anyone sent us a take-down notice? If yes than we can get a real lawyers opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, you don't need to lecture me on "the goal of the Wikimedia projects". I am well aware that the goal is free content, and I have contributed thousands of verify-ably free pieces of content over the decade that I have been contributing to the various projects, including several scans of international (non-US) books. I am well aware of the copyright considerations (having, like Nikki, helped review images at the English Wikipedia's FA process for the past two and a half years), and recognize that the principle behind this deletion nomination is difficult (and quite possibly obscure). That doesn't change the facts of the matter: the same illustration was published in Germany in 1904, and republished in 1909, thus making first publication the German one. Under Commons policy (linked and quoted several times in this discussion), that means we need to apply both US and German law.
I don't like nominating excellent works like this for deletion. I do it because I recognize the importance of following our own policies, including our emphasis (on Commons) that media be free both in the US and in the country of origin. There has yet to be a fact- or policy-based argument as to why the publication of this illustration in Germany in 1904 (five years before the US edition) cannot be considered first publication of said illustration. Nobody doubts that this illustration was published in the US in 1909, and that it is copyright-free in the US. The issue is that 1904 German publication.
The lapse of copyright in one country does not automatically make a work free worldwide. Otherwise all photographs worldwide would be free 25 years after being published (Argentina's law) or even earlier. Each country has its own law regarding copyright; hence why Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights exists, and why we have notices such as "Unless the author has been dead for several years, it is not in the public domain in countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works. This includes Canada, China (not Hong Kong, Macao, or Taiwan Area), Germany, Mexico, Switzerland, and other countries with individual treaties." on such templates as PD-US-no notice. Even when a work was originally published in the US (like, say, a Hemingway novel), German and other copyrights subsist for a duration determined by those countries' own laws. The difference from this case being, of course, that in such cases Commons would not need to consider those countries laws to host files. In this case, the original German publication means that, per Commons policy, we must follow both countries' laws. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what (or who -particularly Wikipedia readers) this position may benefit?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So User:Crisco 1492 are you arguing that the copyright ends in 2 months in Germany? Or are you arguing that because the deaths of the illustrators are not clear and because they might hold copyright to this image that copyright on this work is forever? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. CFCF claims above that the copyright holder was Sobotta, which would mean this is copyrighted in Germany for two more months. If it was actually the illustrators, the matter is less clear - not "forever", but without knowing DOD we can't assume "now". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the link you provide states "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries."[1] And we all agree it is PD in the US. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, there's no dispute that Wikipedia accepts this image, which is why Chris has already moved it there. The question is whether it meets the additional requirement at Commons for all hosted images to be free in their country of origin (Germany in this case). Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, exactly right. Commons and the English Wikipedia have different policies regarding copyright. One requires a file to be free in both the US (where the servers are) and the country of origin, while the other one only requires works to be free in the US. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Database of Scientific Illustrators states that Karl Hajek died in 1935. This is confirmed by the Google Books snippet view of "Julius Tandler: Mediziner und Sozialreformer", by Karl Sablik, p. 83: "[Karl] Hajek, der durch seine Kunst und seine Bilder vielen Studenten didaktische Klarheit in so manche anatomische Probleme brachte, starb am 12 März 1935, während er im Anatomischen Institute ein Leichenpräparat zeichnete..." Arthur Schmitson was born in 1857 according to the database; a date of death is not given. THe last work attributed to him there was published in 1930. Choess (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! He would have been 73 in 1930. According to infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html the average 70 year old in 1930 could be expected to live an average of nine years longer. Thus he probably died circa 1940 plus or minus five or ten years. I think statistically we can reasonably say that the work is in the public domain. Sizeofint (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given that the last publication was in 1930 the death date is likely on the lower end. Sizeofint (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree well done User:Choess we are one step closer to making everyone happy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very good find! I agree that, statistically, there would have been very little chance of him being alive late enough for copyright to be extended, but before I withdraw I would like confirmation. Does Germany have a newspaper archive similar to the Dutch Delpher.nl? CFCF, do you have a link for your assertion that Johannes Sobotta claimed copyright over the illustrations? That question should also be addressed; if he did claim copyright, the work would still be non-free in Germany for the next three months. If he didn't, it's quite likely (though not certain, yet) that the image is in fact PD in Germany. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable, and what a giant waste of time for everyone here. It is discussions like this that deter people from contributing high-quality images to Commons. Based on this 'precautionary principle' all the legwork here has to be done by those who would like to see this high-quality image benefit readers, yet in order to delete it we just have to keep asking questions until we hit the bottom of the rabbit hole. --LT910001 (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LT, it's much better to be safe than to end up with a Commons reuser and/or contributor in court and accused of copyright infringement. Or would you rather Commons opened all reusers and contributors to cases like this? Now that we have this biographical information (it didn't show up on my initial searches, but I'm glad someone knew of this website) I am increasingly hopeful that all images in the book in question are free, but there are two questions left: one from me, to eliminate the last doubt that this is free, and one which wouldn't even be asked if CFCF hadn't insisted that "copyright is specifically attributed to Johannes Sobotta".
If copyright over the illustrations is specifically attributed to the book's author, we'll have to temporarily delete this file (and all others from the book) until next January, when the German copyright expires. This does not mean reuploading the images, but simply undoing the deletion. It is a painless process, although it must be done by an admin. There are numerous other files which will likewise be undeleted in 2016, just like lots of files were undeleted in 2015; it's all a regular part of editing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that it was concluded that the NPG case had no legal standing–I would invite far more such cases if it could get clarity so that we don't need to go through with these kinds of frivolous deletion requests that have no legal basis. Deleting this file for a period of three months would remove any links and all usage–something I assure you is not trivial to restore. The book is PD worldwide as it is printed in the United States before 1923, there is no ambiguity. (Also the copyright is actually attributed to the publisher, see front matter) CFCF (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Again, please provide a citation for your claim "The book is PD worldwide as it is printed in the United States before 1923, there is no ambiguity." You have yet to do so, and our own policies do not recognize such a claim. Rather, even works first published in the US, by US nationals, can still be copyrighted in other countries (particularly those which do not recognize the rule of the shorter term); US copyright law does not apply worldwide, but only in the US. I have already provided several examples, with citations, above. Your bare assertions are untenable.
You are changing your claims as to the copyright holder of this work. You specifically said "... the copyright is specifically attributed to Johannes Sobotta." when this file was nominated for deletion, and now you are saying "the copyright is actually attributed to the publisher". I've gone over the first publication, the German one, and have not been able to find any copyright notice (such notices are not required by German copyright law, so there wouldn't be much of an expectation of one). By default, the illustrations are thus copyright of the illustrators, and the text the copyright of the author (and the English text copyrighted by both the author and translator [as the creator of a derivative work]). Unless we can confirm Schmitson's YOD, we can't be sure this is free.
You are clearly misreading the NPG case. Wikimedia (and the EFF) argued that, under US law, there was no infringement because the level of originality is low. The NPG however claimed copyright under Britain's much stricter copyright laws, particularly the sweat of the broww doctrine. The case was difficult because of the interactions between the two countries' copyright laws (the uploader and servers being in the US, the museum being in the UK), and claiming that it was resolved as the images being unambiguously in the public domain ("the NPG case had no legal standing") is incorrect. Commons recognizes that "Most British academics and practitioners agree that the UK courts would uphold copyright protection on a carefully lit and exposed photograph, taken from a distance, which aims to be a faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art", and thus reuse of said images in the UK could be ruled as a copyright violation by the UK courts. It is in the US that their arguments would not have any legal standing. This is similar to this case: you'd be free to reuse the image in the US, but you could get in trouble in Germany. The only difference is that the Wikimedia Foundation has explicitly taken a position that they will not recognize copyright claims over faithful reproductions of public domain material, whereas they have not made a claim saying that they will not recognize German copyright law. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a copyright notice in the German publication.
"Alle Rechte, insbesondere das derUebersetzung, vorbehalten."
Translation: "All right reserved, especially the one of translation".TMCk (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That has no effect on the later US copyright, which has passed into the public domain. CFCF (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has , in the US. We all agree on this. What is in dispute is the copyright status of the original (German) publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Commons' policy requires works to be free in the country of first publication and in the US. The second criteria is met, but the first has yet to be verified. If we had the second artist's year of death, I'd be satisfied (assuming, of course, he died in 1944 or earlier; if not, then this would be a definite "delete"). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't, and that is completely incorrect. This image is public domain as it is published in the United States and not Germany. The German version's copyright is unrelated- and you yet again manage to ignore commons interpretation: "If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication."
CFCF (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See [2] for copyright attribution to the publisher. CFCF (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the stats I linked, there is a 50% chance he died by 1938 (linearly interpolated) and if he lived to that point a further 50% chance he died by 1943. Overall, we can be more than 75% confident he died in or before 1944. Obviously it would be best if we could ascertain a date of death, but if this is not possible what level of confidence do we need? Theoretically he could have lived to be 116 or so years old but I doubt most people make this assumption when assessing the copyright status of a work with an author of unknown death date. Sizeofint (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are those numbers from, linearly interpolated from what? You can't just make up statistics.CFCF (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here. And that page cites various US government agencies as their source. The numbers are probably for the US but I would expect them to be very similar for Europeans of the same time period. Sizeofint (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep If one of the illustrators died in 1935 and the other was born in the 1850s, then the file is probably fine in the source country. It is clearly in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The overwhelming argumentation above is for  Keep. I have seen no substantive evidence presented in the above discussion, other than vague assertions and claims about "What if this...". Yes there is precautions, but not extrapolated to an infinite extreme position. It is not clear to extend precautions to such an extreme as to overweigh actual evidence presented that the file is public domain. If any new and further, specific, evidence could be presented to the contrary -- for example, some sort of assertion from the claimed copyright holder as woefully argued, above in this discussion -- then a subsequent discussion could be opened with that new, non-vague evidence, presented, at that time. It is clear from the actual evidence that can be confirmed, as presented above, that the file is in the public domain. -- Cirt (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sobo_1909_260.png&oldid=175486345"