Commons:Deletion requests/File:WLA amart Vielle Maison at Porte by William H Johnston.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.
US work younger than 1 January 1923 so thant it can't possibly be PD Teofilo (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- See also the latest comment at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pohick2/3315309392/in/photostream showing that the concerned Flickr uploader is apparently not knowledgable enough on copyright matters. Teofilo (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- It may very well be PD if it was "published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice", or if the copyright was not renewed. This should be checked. The currently used license CC-BY-SA 2.5, however, would apply only to the photograph itself. If the painting is PD, an appropriate license tag should be added. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I deal in old art here, but the concept of "publishing" a painting, much less with a copyright notice, has never made sense to me. I realize this is one little deletion discussion, but applying this concept to artworks is a question I've had for a long time. I would think that such a concept of publication applies to media that can be reproduced (a written work, a film...). Otherwise, why do we not have the majority of US art created ("published"?) between '23 and '77 on Commons now? Any insights welcomed... Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Prior to 1978, if you placed a painting in a place where people could take photographs of it or even sketch it, it could be considered published. Certainly if postcards or posters were made from a painting, or if it was published in a book, then it was considered published. Publishing it without a copyright notice would put it in the public domain. Proving that any particular piece of art was published is hard, as it hinges in what way it was displayed decades ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I deal in old art here, but the concept of "publishing" a painting, much less with a copyright notice, has never made sense to me. I realize this is one little deletion discussion, but applying this concept to artworks is a question I've had for a long time. I would think that such a concept of publication applies to media that can be reproduced (a written work, a film...). Otherwise, why do we not have the majority of US art created ("published"?) between '23 and '77 on Commons now? Any insights welcomed... Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment No argument about the specific case, which I don't know the details of, but the DR claim is certainly not true in the general case; many US works younger then 1923 are PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)- Comment The CC BY-SA license on the photo would only be valid if the photo involves enough creative input as to constitute a derivative work, which I doubt.
- Comment Also, if this painting is found to be in the public domain, I'd suggest uploading the much higher quality version found here: http://americanart.si.edu/collections/search/artwork/?id=12657 -Pete F (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- In some jurisdictions, a photo doesn't need a lot of creativity to gain protection. AFAIK, there is a practice here to delete or crop photos of paintings where the painting's frame is included, if there is no free license for the photo itself. So I think the CC-BY-SA license for the photo itself is a good thing. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: At high magnification I see a very clear signature, but neither (c) nor the date as required for notice during JOhnson's life. Therefore, the painting is PD-no notice. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
