Commons:Deletion requests/File:Universalist Church (Edward Hopper, 1926).jpg

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:Universalist Church (Edward Hopper, 1926).jpg

Edward Hopper (creator of this painting) died in 1967, also not more than 70 years ago. {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto}} doesn't apply, and if it can't be demostrated that it's public domain some other way, than this needs to be deleted from Commons. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The work is in the public domain, as can be seen from Museum's website, http://artmuseum.princeton.edu/collections/objects/5509, where no copyright is listed and a high-resolution version of the painting can be downloaded with no stipulations. The museum always lists any copyright, and if a work is under copyright does not provide the possibility of download for public use. Whether the work is in the public domain because the University owns the copyright to this particular piece and has released it into the public domain, as it does with all artwork owned by the Trustees of Princeton University, or whether the copyright on this particular work was not renewed, as is the case with Hopper's Nighthawks, I do not know. However, that the Princeton University Art Museum considers it in the public domain and provided this high-resolution file for download without stipulation. Moreover, I communicated to them that I was using it on wikipedia Djkeddie (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no proof on the sourced that images is lidensed under {{Cc-zero}} either. Also just because the Princeton University Art Museum owns the painting, don't neccessarily means that they are the copyright-holders too. It would be nice to know, why they consider it public domain. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 15:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be. I can ask them so as to give a more precise tag if possible.Djkeddie (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I received a response from the manager of collections and information access at the museum and they wrote:

The Edward Hopper is in the public domain, in spite of the general rules you mention. This is largely because there is no estate or heir to manage rights issues, and each holding museum is, in effect, the copyright holder for the works in its collection. Below you will find communication from the Whitney Museum of Art on this subject. I further contacted the Whitney’s rights and reproductions department in 2012 and was given this same information:

"At this time, the specific owner of a work by the Artist Edward Hopper can administer the copyright for the art piece. The Whitney only represents the copyright for works owned by the Museum, and therefore [---] presently has the power to administer licensing rights for the Edward Hopper works they own. Please see our official letter of explanation below: The Whitney Museum believes the copyrights for works bequeathed to the museum by Josephine N. Hopper passed to the Museum along with the works themselves. If this was not the case, then the copyrights for these works would have gone to the residuary beneficiaries of Josephine N. Hopper¹s will. The Whitney has an agreement with one of the residuary beneficiaries confirming our ability to license the copyrights for all bequeathed works to the Museum, as well as all other copyrights held by Edward and Josephine Hopper at their deaths and for works by the artist that are owned by the museum. Presently our policy concerning copyrights for works of art by Edward Hopper which are owned by other museums and collectors is to defer all licensing directly to those institutions or individuals."

Cathryn L. Goodwin Manager, Collections Information and Access Princeton University Art Museum 609.258.9374 cathryng@princeton.edu

Is there a particular public domain tag that would best represent this situation? Should I provide a tag with some summation of this explanation attached?Djkeddie (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the permissions to reflect the reason why the the artwork is in the public domain. Are we agreed that the deletion tag can be removed?Djkeddie (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It would probably better, if the e-mail would be forwarded to OTRS and than the tag changed to PD-self, as essentially the museum is releasing its copyright. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've forwarded the email to OTRS.Djkeddie (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am ready to assume good faith that the museum's experts are fit to assert that they have been diligent in thoughtfully claiming that they hold the copyright. The bigger problem is that they say "No commercial use or alteration is allowed". It seems to me that they misspoke when talking about public domain - their real intent is to prevent commercial use and alteration. There is some talk in OTRS about asking them to clarify - I think that someone, either in OTRS or here, ought to write to the museum to clarify whether commercial use is allowed. If it is, then the image can stay. If not, then it should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood, I'm happy to email them if you would like, though it might be more direct for someone from OTRS to do it. Let me knowDjkeddie (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Ticket received, 2015082610001523, but now it's up to the museum to come with evidence for their weird assumption that they would be the copyright holder of any work in their collection. Deleted for now. Jcb (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)