Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Walter Gircke

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.

Files found with Special:Search/Walter Gircke

[edit]

German photographer Walter Gircke died in 1974, so his photographs are still protected in Germany until the end of 2044. Gircke was working for German newspapers and agencies, so even if our immediate source for a file is the American Bain collection (which apparently includes images merely distributed by Bain in the US) or the photograph was taken somewhere else, his photographs must still be presumed to have Germany as their source country and therefore be deleted. The files can be restored in 2045.

Rosenzweig τ 12:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding these files to the deletion request (same photo):
Getty: [2] --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is the country of origin, that is, where was the photo was first published or distributed. We have an evidence that File:Richard Adolf Zsigmondy LOC.jpg was acquired and distributed by Bains News Service before 1927, i.e., that the country of origin is U.S. and {{PD-US}} applies, but I don't see an evidence that this photo was distributed in Germany around that time. If this is correct, then we can keep this photo on Commons, but we can not use it on de.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using newspapers.com, I found the photo in the Los Angeles Daily Times of December 7, 1926, see [3]. With the de:Deutsches Zeitungsportal (which as of now is very incomplete in its selection of German newspapers) I could find it only in the Badische Presse of September 26, 1929 when they reported his death. The photos I could find there accompanying reports of his Nobel Prize win in November 1926 were very similar, though not this exact photograph (they were probably made on the same occasion as this one here). But, using de:ANNO – AustriaN Newspapers Online, I did find this exact same photograph printed in Austria's Das interessante Blatt, published in Vienna, from November 25, 1926. Given the incompleteness of the German portal, it might have been published in Germany around that time as well. Or even earlier: The Badische Presse of November 13, 1926 (one day after the Nobel Prize winners were announced) has one of those very similar photographs mentioned above, suggesting that either it was very quickly made the day before (were they that fast already in 1926?) or that it had been shot earlier for a different reason.
So for evidence of publication, we have Das interessante Blatt from Vienna, Austria, 1926-11-25, and the Los Angeles Daily Times from the US, 1926-12-07. Both within 30 days of each other, so I guess that's a simultaneous publication per the Berne Convention. The country of origin would then be the country with the shorter term of protection. Which one that was in 1926, Austria or the US, needs a separate analysis. --Rosenzweig τ 11:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this publication analysis. It suggests that File:Richard Adolf Zsigmondy LOC.jpg is in public domain in the US per {{PD-US}}. If it is a simple photograph, then it is also in public domain in Austria per {{PD-Austria}}. I don't have information on the threshold of originality in Austria. I only had one DR case for Denmark, where a similar photo was classed as "simple". Materialscientist (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a simple photograph in Austria. That category is restricted to photos from automated photo booths, X-ray imagery, satellite imagery, surveillance camera footage and such; see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria#Photographs and Commons:Simple photographs. A portrait photograph is not a simple photograph in Austria.
As for the shorter copyright term: In the US, a photograph first published in 1926 would have been protected for 28 years (with notice and registration), for 56 years (later 75 years, then 95 years) if there was a proper renewal. In Austria, we have to go back to the copyright law of 1895 (the predecessor of the 1936 law still in force today, with many modifications). That law protected works of photography for 10 years from creation, or for 10 years from publication if published within 10 years of creation (§ 48, [4]). The protection of photographs that had fallen into the PD was later restored (in 1996) and had been extended to 70 years pma in 1972 already; but in 1926, the term was 10 years.
10 years is shorter than 28 years, so it seems we'd have to consider Austria the country of origin. The effective copyright term in the US could have been 0 years though if there was no proper notice/registration or up to 95 years with notice, registration and renewal. And the effective term in Austria now is 70 years pma. So we would have to come to a decision which is the actual shorter term in a situation like this one. If such a decision cannot be made, COM:PCP says the file has to be deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 13:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. We get into the question of if we have to apply the "shorter term" thing as of date of publication, or now. The U.S. was not a member of the Berne Convention at the time, so it could not be the Berne country of origin per their definition. On the other hand, what about 1926 U.S. works which were published internationally? If we apply that approach, then a country could never be the country of origin for its own works published internationally before they joined the treaty. That seems wrong; if you join the treaty you should then be a possible country of origin for works of their authors. Also, if countries break apart (or join together), it's impossible to use historical terms etc. to determine a country of origin today, which is what lawsuits would be based on. In turn I guess that means the country of origin can change over time, if a country changes their laws etc., which is definitely odd but hard for me to read any other way. *Currently*, I think the nominal U.S. term would be 95 years from publication, and the Austrian one would be 118 years from publication, which would make the U.S. the country of origin. Obviously, it's PD in the U.S. today. It likely became PD in Austria in 1937 or so (or maybe extended by their 1936 law to 20 years, which would then have expired in 1947). It was not restored until 1996, meaning it was not restored in the U.S. by the URAA, since it was still PD on Jan 1, 1996, in Austria (the presumed source country since it was seemingly published there first). (This is the situation mentioned in the tag {{PD-Austria-1932}}, which is invalid for Austria itself but is valid for determining URAA restorations.). But really, I guess the question is as of when do the Berne definitions get applied -- at the time of creation, or publication (since the act of publication can change the country of origin), or continually as time goes on. There is nothing in the definition that says it's fixed as of the time of publication, and given that the country of origin can seemingly be changed simply acts, or countries joining or leaving the treaty, it may be we have to continually apply it, as weird results as that may give. If you are applying U.S. law at the time, then you may have to take into account lack of notice or renewal, as well. Using 95 years from publication today has some grounding in Berne, since that is the term the rest of the WTO agreed to in the Uruguay Round of talks (when it came to restoring works in the U.S. which had lost copyright due to those formalities). I don't think any case has come up which gives guidance on situations like this, where countries themselves have changed, or changes based on countries acceding to the treaty.
It is odd that Bain seems to have a glass negative -- usually those were the originals. Maybe it was possible to create those from prints obtained overseas -- as a photo of an Austrian subject by a German photographer, it would also be odd for Bain to have obtained the original from the photographer, though not impossible (maybe they acquired a German or Austrian archive at some point). It seems vaguely "wrong" to keep a photo which is still under copyright in the primary markets of the photographer and subject, but on the other hand, international publication of news photos can end up in these very odd situations given the definitions in the Berne Convention (which itself seemed to favor earlier expiration in the case of ties). I may go  Weak keep on this one, and  Delete the other two. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment They must have had some way of producing new glass negatives from existing prints or similar. Compare File:German field bakery on march LOC 24395892170.jpg from the Bain collection, which clearly reproduces a postcard by German photographer Alfred Kühlewindt. --Rosenzweig τ 18:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been easy to make a glass negative by photographing a printed copy. Glass negatives are not used since late 1920s, but LOC still provides microfilm copies of printed materials [5]. Materialscientist (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept three, Deleted two: The three files identified as the LOC ggbain.29522 photo taken by Walter Gircke are clearly now PD in US, no matter whether the photo was ever registered or renewed, due to its publication in the US in 1926. The important question is what is the country of origin for this photo. I've reviewed this discussion, legal papers about the Berne country of origin, and Nimmer on Copyright and I can't find any record that the unusual issue discussed above has ever been directly addressed by any legal authority. I'm going to take the position that just as the copyright term for a hypothetical work can change over time and thus a work can theoretically fall out of and back into copyright multiple times, the Berne convention's country of origin for a work simultaneously published in multiple countries can also change over time as countries join the Berne convention or change their term of copyright protection.

For the LOC ggbain.29522 photo I think it is reasonable that it was first published simultaneously in 1926 in the US (with a term that as evaluated now was no longer than 95 years from publication) and one or more countries with a term that is now longer than the US term (presumably life+70). As such the Berne convention country of origin for this photo is the US. So I'm keeping the three files of the LOC ggbain.29522 photo. If in the future evidence is uncovered that this photo was published somewhere other than the US more than 30 days before it was published in the US (i.e. more than 30 days before 7 December 1926) this analysis should be revisited.

For the other two files showing the Walter Gircke photo of a demonstration in Azerbaijan we have no reasonable evidence and chain of logic that the country of origin is anything other than a country with a term of copyright protection of at least life+70. So I'm deleting those two files, which can be undeleted in 2045. —RP88 (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_Walter_Gircke&oldid=722616769"