Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Revista El Gráfico" insource:PD-AR-Photo

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.

Files found with Special:Search/"Revista El Gráfico" insource:PD-AR-Photo

Per COM:URAA + COM:PCP. These photos were published after 1970 and the copyright has not been expired in US yet. This request is follow-up this DMCA tackdown notice, as the source of these photos are same as the takedowned photo (i.e. Revista El Gráfico).

SCP-2000 06:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I only made a croop of an already uploaded image. If the Community decide it's a copyright violation, I have no problem. But then, you should also request the deletion of the image from which I did the cropping ([1]). Thanks. Leonprimer (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. I will request deletion request for this photo. SCP-2000 13:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Pero son fotos tomadas en Argentina, donde el derecho de autor expira pasados los 25 años. Si te parece que en Estados Unidos, supuestamente no expiraron los derechos de autor, no las utilices y listo. En Argentina, son perfectamente utilizables. Diego HC (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Diego HC la política de Commons COM:Licensing indica que las imágenes tienen que estar en el dominio publico o tener licencias libres en el país de origen y en los Estados Unidos. Estas fotos no cumplen con dicha política. Saludos. Günther Frager (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment My long experience in this project has taught me that URAA issues depends on the criterion used by the administrators who decide about the respective DR. While some admin decide to keep the files according to Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, other admin directly delete the images. Because of this, I decided not to get involved in this kind of discussion anymore. If the total files are deleted or kept, it's ok for me. Fma12 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty new here, but I think that the main problem is when a request are made in bulk like here. The admins would need to check carefully if the claim is true for dozens of files and I understand if they refuse to do so. If the DR is made on a specific file and the case is a clear copyvio due to URAA, then the admins should delete it, as the official policy is Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act. Notice that last April a note was made on the link you provided stating that the result of that discussion cannot longer be used. Günther Frager (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that you are pretty new, that explains your impetus. I think that most of admin are also pretty tired of URAA discussions. As I stated above, my will to participate in URAA debates has decreased considerably. Fma12 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Compared with other URAA-related cases, these photos have higher legal risks, since the similar photo was DMCA takedowned. Thanks. SCP-2000 04:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

While I have no legal basis and I'll respect what decision the Admins say about this I wanna clarify that after a quick search that Kempes picture that sparked all of this DR discussion was not taken by an El Gráfico photographer, but instead an international news agency and then it was published by the magazine. When it got published onto Commons I hope OP made a bad faith mistake and assumed that international photos published by El Gráfico also fell into PD-AR-Photo. Also that this bulk is very inconsistent and I should assume that the copyright of pictures taken depends on who and where the picture was taken.

I'll also suggest carefully review each case. Many El Gráfico pictures have the pictures credited at the end of their articles or at the top of their articles, usually beginning with "Fotos por:". For example see this article about Villas at the 1982 Monte Carlo Masters mentions that the photos were taken by Gamma so we assume these photos still have copyright since Getty bought part of their catalogue. While this article about Maradona's Boca debut lists all photographers as usual El Gráfico contributors and doesn't seem they have renewed their Copyright. I hope this gets solved in a timely manner. Kind Regards Hyperba21 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hyperba21: : Let me clear this regarding the Guillermo Vilas photographs published on El Gráfico #3262. Although Gamma owned their rights by them (and obviously El Gràfico published them under permission), the images are PD in Argentina so Law 11,723, art. 34 only states that copyright expires 20 years after the publication therefore those Vilas images would not infringe any rule (at least in Argentina) keeping their PD-AR-Photo status. Fma12 (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete: low-quality photos of soccer players that are clearly from newspapers (whoever uploaded these really didn't think to crop out the logo, then it would be less noticeable). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. There is significant doubt that the photograps are free in the US. Therefor com:PCP mandates deletion of the files. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)