Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 24736216@N07 postcard

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.

Postcards from Roger W Flickr Stream

[edit]

Lots of valuable original photographs in this Flickr stream, but it's quite obvious that these postcards are not Mr. W's own work. They are all a bit older, but as far as I can tell none of them would be old enough to be out of copyright in their respective source country - with the possible exception of File:Budapest - Franz Josef Bridge (1911 Postcard) (8010933347).jpg (Category:1911 postcards of Budapest exists and has other content, but those files were uploaded through a collaboration with the actual copyright owner).

El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:Lisbon - Castelo do São Jorge & Largo Martim Moniz (1968).jpg as it falls under the provisions of {{PD-Portugal-URAA}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know there is no copyright notice on the back side? El Grafo (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do not. As also we’d not know if this photo had been also published first elsewhere, like on the cover of a magazine, without a copyright notice. As it is, this photo as such, standalone, falls under the provisions of {{PD-Portugal-URAA}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it's OK as long as we don't know? Burden of proof is on the one who thinks we can keep it, but here we go: Backside of the postcard is available available here. It has two copyright symbols, publisher is Centro de Caridade Nossa Senhora do Perpétuo Socorro. It has no year, but as far as I understand this, that was not necessary for non-literary, musical, or dramatics works before 1978. With that, it seems to comply with the US copyright formalities that were in place when it was published in the 1960s and thus fail the {{PD-Portugal-URAA}} criterion "was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities". El Grafo (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC) PS: just ftr, also archived here[reply]
(No it’s not okay, which is fine because that’s not what I said.)
Anyway, very good finding. We can also see that the back of the postcard says «Fotografia gentilmente cedida por d’ EÇA». This photographer likely didn’t sign any release nor was paid for his work (cedida), so this is likely copyfraud all the way down. This Charity Center of Our Lady of the Everlasting Help can stick their «reprodução proibida» note where all the silly names are kept.
Now, who is this Fulano d’Eça and when did he die? That is the question. After all, we cannot say this is anonymous therefore Undelete in 2089; it will be {{PD-old}} some time and we need a date.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo and Tuvalkin: I'm not sure about this, but could you argue that the copyright symbol here is defective, therefore making the notice defective? What I mean by this is that the copyright symbol isn't really a copyright symbol, because the "c" isn't enclosed in a complete circle. This means it could fail w:Copyright notice § Technical requirements, because the notice does not include the word "Copyright", "Copr." or the symbol "©". --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 00:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to wikisource:Copyright Act of 1909, Section 18, it says "of section five of this Act, the notice may consist of the letter [c] inclosed within a circle, thus: ©". However, as I stated above, the "c" isn't enclosed in a circle. It's two "c"s inclosed within two touching arcs, not a circle. Therefore, it is not a copyright symbol, it fails w:Copyright notice § Technical requirements and it is a defective notice. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 00:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I want to keep this image, and I think that the publisher did commit a kind of copyfraud by asserting licensing rights that were likely not intended by the original photographer («Fotografia gentilmente cedida»), and I also think that copyright law is a sham and a hoax all way down, meant only to keep giving Disney and other bigwigs exclusive merchandising profits over “intelectual property” created soon more than 100 years ago — and all this kafkian jumping through hoops we have to go to comply with said law where it applies retroactively to detail cases like this is likely an unintended side effect of its labirynthine complexity and not something any copyright lawyer(’s client) would really care about… but even so I don’t think that it’s a good idea to go pick on this publisher’s stylistic choice for rendering the "©" symbol: Intention counts (and here intent is clearly expressed: «proibida a reprodução») — there are likely millions of cases where this symbol was rendered even more poorly, namely as "(c)", and yet those are never questioned (as far as I know). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin, "(c)" is accepted as per w:Copyright symbol § Typing the character. Anyway, I'd like to link to a VP discussion I stated about this (Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Determining whether a copyright symbol is a copyright symbol). This file is copyrighted in Portugal until 2089 (see the discussion above), so it has to be deleted on Commons. However, this file could be imported to other wikis which only follow US copyright rules. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the discussion in the V.P. — it’s interesting, and thanks for explaining that "(c)" is an acceptable variant.
Concerning this postcard, where does that 2089 comes from? I hope it’s not from my own post of 2022.11.03+02:59, as that was a number I threw in at random. I am saying here that the copyright notice in this postcard is illegitimate and therefore it falls under {{PD-Portugal-URAA}}, yes, but rather due to the (likely unintentional) copyfraud suggested by the chosen wording («Fotografia gentilmente cedida»), not by unusual typography that deviates from the 1909 requirements (if it helps, though, so much for the better).
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to think the symbol may be more a logo for "Centro de Caridade" than a copyright symbol (another version of it is on www.delcampe.net). If it was placed in what was otherwise an obvious copyright notice, I'd think it would be valid, but its placement would seem to indicate it really means something else. So, it's probably OK in the U.S., so it could be moved to en-wiki. It does seem to credit the photo to "EÇA" -- Google Translate just says the phrase means "Photo courtesy of EÇA", so maybe it's missing some subtlety I'm not aware of. I'm not sure where we get the name "Fulano d’Eça" out of that; seems more an acronym and possibly a reference to an organization. If it refers to an individual, then we'd need to know how long they lived, and failing that wait for {{PD-old-assumed}}, which would be 120 years or 2089. If that just refers to an organization, then it's anonymous and would be fine in 2039 I think. But I can't think of any way to save it for Commons, given that Portugal has typical EU terms now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg:
  • Great thinking about that contoured "CC" being a logo, not a botched attempt at "©".
  • See wikt:Fulano.
  • See Category:Eça (surname): very well known surname, not an acronym at all, capitalization notwithstanding; "Ç" doesn’t occur in Portuguese initialisms, anyway.
  • Still no idea who the photographer could be.
  • The word "cedida" implies no monetary compensation was exchanged and no transference of ownership took place.
  • I cannot see why this is not covered by {{PD-Portugal-URAA}}: It was «first published in Portugal» and was «published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities» and it is a «photographic work »« created before 1 July 1970».
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin, the reason it's not covered is because of retroactive laws in the EU. See COM:EUROPEAN UNION. Essentially, if the photograph was protected in at least one country in the EU, the copyright would be restored to 70pma for normal works, and 70 years for anonymous works. Since this was protected in Spain (which had 80pma at the time), this work was restored to 70pma (or 70 years if it is anonymous) in Portugal. The laws that restored works to 70pma came after the URAA date, so this photo wasn't restored to 70pma in the US. However, Commons requires works to be free in both the US and source country. This enters PD in 2039 or 2089 in portugal depending on whether it's pseudonymous/anonymous. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 21:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: Unfortunately, the {{PD-Portugal-URAA}} tag is wrong -- see its talk page. It misreads the retroactive effect of moving to 70 years -- if a work was protected in any EEA nation in 1995, then the work got restored in Portugal. Which basically means *all* works -- I don't think we've yet found an example of a work not protected in some European country or another. A 1968 photo would have been protected for 50 years from creation in the UK, for example. The UK extended on Jan 1 1996, but it was still protected by their old terms, thus should have been restored in Portugal as well despite having fallen into the public domain there previously. Spain protected stuff for even longer, so I doubt there is any work which would have been shorter. It is unfortunate the tag exists, to mislead people. The 1970 cutoff is valid for URAA purposes, so it avoided the URAA and being protected for 95 years in the U.S. that way, but the EU restorations in their law mimic most other EU countries in that respect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Budapest - Franz Josef Bridge (1911 Postcard) (8010933347).jpg,  Delete the rest I think. The first is indeed a Brück & Sohn photo, and Europeana says it's PD[1] (it would be {{PD-anon-70-EU}}). Any other European ones look more modern and would be under copyright. I think {{PD-Portugal-URAA}} is incorrect in hinting that pre-1970 photos are OK in Portugal; that date would be true in respect for the URAA restoration (only 1970+ photos could be restored in the US), but the EU restoration means one of the two second bullet points must be satisfied for it to be OK in Portugal. File:San Jacinto - USS Texas.jpg is a photo by a Jim Doane; a few of his postcards are on the web[2], with some having a copyright notice and some not. I think we'd need to find the back of that, unfortunately. Some are from the 1990s; no way are those OK. These have unfortunately been copied far and wide due to their presence on Flickr for so long. The two pre-1989 American ones have a chance of being PD, but only if we can find the backs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: all of them, per nomination and Carl Lindberg, including the Budapest card because we already have a better version at File:10248-Budapest-1908-Franz Josefs Brücke mit Schleppzug-Brück & Sohn Kunstverlag.jpg (apparently it's from 1908, not 1911). --Rosenzweig τ 15:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I restored the Budapest card because after closer examination it's apparently a slightly different version, maybe a later print. --Rosenzweig τ 18:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restored File:Lisbon - Castelo do São Jorge & Largo Martim Moniz (1968).jpg, as it was already PD in Portugal at the URAA cut date. The creator name is completely irrelevant for photos of that date, since back then copyright expired 25 years after the photo creation, independently of who created it. These copyrights were never restored by the transposition of the European harmonization, where retroactivity was clearly specified to have value since 1 July 1995, as was already extensively discussed at Template talk:PD-Portugal-photo, with juridical sources and references, and without any evidence supporting an approach in Portugal similar to the Germany one.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_24736216@N07_postcard&oldid=829136375"