Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Hugo Sundström

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 in Category:Photographs by Hugo Sundström

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland copyright lasts for 70+ years after the photographer's death and in this case the photographer, Hugo Sundström, died in 1973. Although they seem to be licensed as CC BY 4.0, but according to the accompanying text "the user is responsible for respecting copyright and privacy protection and that the information is correct. The use of personal photos in marketing and advertising is prohibited without the consent of the person in the photo. The user is responsible for obtaining permissions for the persons, works and trademarks appearing in the files." None of which is compatible with Commons' policies. Nor is it clear that the Finnish Heritage Agency owns the copyright to the photographs in the first place or let alone what license for them would work in the United States. Since there's zero evidence that these photographs were published prior to being uploaded to the internet. So these images should be deleted until at least 2044.

Adamant1 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Finland, like various other Scandinavian countries, makes a distinction between (simple) photographs and photographic works of art. Only photographic works of art are protected for 70 years pma, (simple) photographs for 50 years from creation (COM:Finland#Photographs that are not works of art). The threshold for photographic works of art is rather high as I recall. These photos seem to be documentary type photographs, which I would classify as "simple" photographs as far as Finnish law is concerned, which would mean they are in the PD in Finland. Any photographs made before 1946 would also pass the {{PD-1996}} test and be in the PD in the US as well.

Another question would be if the Finnish Heritage Agency as the provider of the photographs also owns the rights to the photos and is therefore authorized to put the photos under CC licenses. Does anyone know more about this? Users from Finland perhaps? --Rosenzweig τ 11:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is press release about the donation of the Hufvudstadsbladet photos which includes Hugo Sundström photos in this deletion request to Journalistic photo archive. --Zache (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So these are newspaper photographs and therefore almost certainly "simple" photographs. The donation of the complete photo archives (up to the year 2000) of several newspapers by the publisher, which presumably had usage rights, suggests that these usage rights were also passed along, considering that the goal was to make them accessible for everyone. So the CC licenses should be legit, and all photos which are still protected in either Finland or the US should be covered by a free license. Therefore

Keep. --Rosenzweig τ 11:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question of previous publication, there is a section "Julkaisut" in Finna service with newspaper, date and page number. This is another record that would need to be parsed from the data but could be added to Commons? Would exhibition_history fit that purpose? Ipr1 (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: for example, Allring House 1940 (2500C; JOKAHBL3C A53-1).tif is marked in Finna (https://finna.fi/Record/museovirasto.240e9e5f-5625-4e00-9672-c8e4b01a46af) as having been published Hufvudstadsbladet 16.6.1940, s. 4, which is the newspaper, date and page. Many of the pictures are digitized from original negatives, so they don't appear as "grainy" as they would appear if they had been digitized from printed paper. Others have already commented on the donation to Finnish Heritage Agency from the newspapers and museums. Ipr1 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The according to the accompanying text: the user is responsible for.... . In Finland, there are non-copyright based restrictions on how one can use photographs, which are derived from privacy laws. These however doesn't prevent that licencing the photographs under CC. Here is the reference in Finnish. The text is a bit old, and details could have been changed, but you get the idea from it: [1] --Zache (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per explanations and per published in well known curated collection. --Zache (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue about it, but some of these clearly aren't "simple photographs." As at least IMO they show off the abilities of the photographer. Otherwise essentially everything is. I'd also like to see actual evidence of prior publication. Just because the photographs were owned and donated by the Hufvudstadsbladet doesn't mean they actually published them. In fact it says the press release about it specifically says the donation "included more than 30,000 photographic plates", which wouldn't have been published.

There's also the issue of personality rights. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland clearly say's that "photos of regular people in public places may only be published without their consent if the person is clearly not the main subject of the image" and " if the person can be identified, the image may not be used in advertisement (commercially or non-commercially) without consent." Neither of which works for Commons. You can claim that not a copyright restriction or whatever, but it still goes against the rule that files can't have restrictions on where or how they can be used. Especially the part about how images may not be used in advertising if the person is the main subject of the photograph and is identifiable without their permission. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I already mentioned above, the source (Finna) clearly has the newspaper and date in the publishing details. Why are you arguing against it? Ipr1 (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the archive currently holds far more than the initial donations, see description [2]. Ipr1 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipr1: I'm not really sure what your talking about. For instance if I go to the source for File:75th Anniversary Jubilee and Jubilee regatta of Nyländska Jaktklubben NJK 1936 (9250A; JOKAHBL3B G09-8).tif, [3], all it says is "Manfucturing: Shooting time 12.07.1936, shooting time 1936, shooting time 1900s, 1930s, shooting time 12.07.1936, shooting time 1936, shooting time 1900s, 1930s, publication time 13.07.1936, publication time 1936 Sundström, Hugo, cinematographer." None of that has to do with newspapers or details about the image being printed in one. So can you clarify exactly what your referring to? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in earlier comment, the publication is marked in the source (see the Finna-link) under publication. We don't currently write that to Commons since it has to be parsed from a different record with a different format. The example I mentioned has newspaper, date and page: Hufvudstadsbladet 16.6.1940, s. 4. Finna-service (maintained by the National Library) also has newspaper so you could go look if the exact paper has been digitized or contact library for copy of it. Ipr1 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

publication time means the date when it is published. Also, link to the newspaper where it was published. --Zache (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Publication time" is pretty ambagious and doesn't explicitly mean "publication in a newspaper" like you were claiming. We'll have to agree disagree though. But even if I grant that the one image of the boat was previously published in a newspaper that doesn't mean every single image from them was since they clearly say a good partition of the photographs come from photographic slides. There's also still the issue with personality rights for the one's containing people anyway. Although I'm more then willing to remove images from the DR that have clear evidence of being previously published in a newspaper. It would be cool if links to the actual newspaper was a part of the source though. And the thing with the personality rights needs to be worked out regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also as pointed out already, the publication time is irrelevant as the photos are under CC-BY even if we think they would not be in public domain. --Zache (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There's nothing to indicate that a CC-BY license is a free pass to the normal copyright terms of a country. Especially in cases where the work isn't even being licensed as CC-BY by the original creator to begin with. I'm not going to argue about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright can be owned by employer in some cases, in which case employer can transfer ownership. CC is a license to use regardless of the copyright status: copyright can remain, but usage is given according to license. It does not invalidate copyright, but it gives permission to use and distribute. It is not a violation of copyright as you seem to indicate. Ipr1 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it can be in some cases. We don't really know what the original contract was on our end between the photographer and employer though or if it involved them retaining the copyright to every photograph he took, or really any of them. Just because they happen to have originals of his photographs in their archive and gave them to a museum 50 years later doesn't mean anything either. Although I'm totally fine with leaving it up to the closing administrator, but we don't usually just assume in similar cases. Although I could ultimately care less myself. Except I do think it's questionable given how long it's been since the photographs were taken and lack of evidence that the paper owned the copyright to every, or really any, of his photographs. Plus there's still the personality rights issue on top of it, which I don't see you having an answer for. But again, I'm fining leaving both up to the closing administrator. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to know the original contract as the w:Finnish Heritage Agency is perfectly fine and credible source for the current copyright status. --Zache (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that has been litigated multiple times already in various places and we don't just take the word of a cultural institution on if the copyright statues of something donated to them is valid or not. Especially not without actual evidence. More so in this case at least IMO because like I've said about 4 times now their own licensing terms say they don't guarantee anything held by them is PD. Cool if their a perfectly fine and credible source though. Their the ones saying "The user must respect copyright and privacy protection and ensure that any data is correct." So I think your only making my own arguement if that's your position. Or let me guess, they are only "a perfectly fine and credible source" when it comes to supporting the images being kept but not the other way around? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some external for your claim: we don't just take the word of a cultural institution on if the copyright statues of something donated to them is valid or not.. AFAIK that is just not true. --19:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Zache (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can always contact the museum folks if you don't trust their website: [4]. Ipr1 (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you are meaning with ... CC-BY license is a free pass to the normal copyright terms of a country. Could you explain what you mean. --Zache (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take more accurate quote to clarify: "Work for hire does not belong to the creator of the work. Under the US copyright act of 1976, the publishing rights and copyright of work for hire belong to the employer." and "As stated above, any photographs generated by a photographer during the course of employment belong to the employer. The copyright automatically belongs to the company and not the individual who created the images." Source: [5] Since Sundström was working for Hufvudstadsbladet (later for Nya Pressen) when taking these photographs (source: [6]), their copyright went to the newspaper, who then donated them. So time of death is irrevelevant in these. And copyright holder can determine the license ([7]) which in this case is CC and is accepted in Commons (see Commons:Licensing). If that isn't enough, these were taken before year 1966 and {{PD-Finland50}} could apply regardless since they are documentary in nature. Ipr1 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More recent version at Aalto-university website also has this: "The copyright of an employee can be seen to have been transferred to the employer in part of such works that have been created while carrying out work assignments. The definition of job assignments is important in interpreting transferable rights. Rights are transferred to the employer for use in their ordinary activity." Source: [8]. So by all evidence, the copyright law allows transferring rights and there is no question about it. The press release as linked already above also states the photographs were donated. So they are in the position to release the photographs with a license. Is there anything else? Ipr1 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm not really debating what the law says in general though. What I have an issue with is if it applies in this specific instance and I just see any evidence that it does. Your allowed to disagree, but just citing the law like I don't already know what it is or that it somehow proves they own the copyright to the photographs doesn't really help establish anything though. But then I also don't feel like arguing about it and am more then willing to leave it to the closing administrator as I've said multiple times now. So why not drop so this can be dealt with however it turns out instead of lecturing me about the law or otherwise beating a dead horse? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it sounds like you are being difficult just to cause problems rather than having any credible issues. Finnish Heritage Agency operates under Ministry of Education and Culture (source: [9]) so I would put more trust in them than anyone else. When they make press release [10] about donation and work related to restoring the negatives that is far more credible than what you have presented so far trying to counter their claims. Ipr1 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I did start this deletion request though. So I think I have a right to respond if someone is going to lecture me about the law like I don't already know what it says. Your the one who decided to turn this into a debate by continuing it with the lecturing after I said multiple times that I'm perfectly fine leaving it up to the closing administrator. You should have just made your case to begin with and moved on. There isn't really anything else to say about it anyway.

Although I will say that it's laughable your acting like I'm somehow trying to counter their claims or say they aren't creditable when a large part of my argument from the start of this has been that they themselves say they don't guarantee the original copyright to anything on their website. It seems like both you and Zache want to have it both ways where they are totally creditable and should be taken at their word while also ignoring their own licensing terms in the meantime. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears about it though. It's always funny to me when people come into DRs saying we should trust a source while ignoring anything from it that contradicts their opinion lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as there is no clear answer in Finland if reproductions of PD works using camera / scanner before 2023 got protection via copyright law 49 a § or not. So some organizations will claim that digitizing the PD works or regular photos it will create a new protection for the reproductions and some not. In March 2023, a copyright law change implemented the EU copyright directive articla 14 , which clearly stated that reproductions of pd works or photos will not get new protection via 49 a §. So for new digitalizations it is solved. Sadly, the change was not retroactive and answer is still unknown for earlier digitalizations and things are still in flux. --Zache (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different organizations: Finna is maintained by National Library and has content from participating museums and other institutions. Photographs in question are maintained by Finnish Heritage Agency and published via Finna-service. The question you have posed is if Finnish Heritage Agency has the rights, which they do. Finna-service does not claim to make guarantees as they have the role of "distributor" (a publishing service) for the cultural items held by museums. As such, Finna does not make claims about copyright and instead directs to the publisher of said content in questions: for that Finna describes the maintainer of the collection who can answer the questions about copyright and licensing. You can see it in Finna-page, which is linked in the image source. Ipr1 (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, as you can see in the image information, institution is marked as Finnish Heritage Agency, and source is Finna, which is maintained National Library. They are two organizations working independently. That is the reason Finna does not guarantee what is published in the service, that is upto the organization publishing the items in the service. Ipr1 (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the structured data in Commons we are also marking publisher and operator separately as they are different organizations. National Library and Heritage Agency are marked separately there too. Ipr1 (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A concrete example: if you go to New York Public Library to read New York Times, the library does not guarantee that the articles are flawless. They are separate organizations with separate responsibilities. That is how it works in the western world. Ipr1 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... With the exception of some restrictions relating to photographs of identifiable people and some restrictions that make it illegal for Commons to host certain works, Commons considers non-copyright restrictions to be matters for photographers/uploaders or reusers and are not grounds for deletion of works from Commons. ... (from Commons:Non-copyright restrictions) -- However, I agree that we should add {{Personality rights}} template to the photos which have persons (with exceptions on photos which are out-of-copyright by age and persons are known to be dead) --Zache (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

admittedly I haven't looked into it to much but I assume the whole "with the exception of some restrictions relating to photographs of identifiable people" would include restrictions on publishing the photograph in an advertisement since the whole "files that can be used anyone, for any purpose" thing is core to Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous explanations, license {{Cc-by-4.0}} and Deletion requests/File:Lilla-Teatern-1959.jpg. raid5 21:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above rationale. --RAN (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Hugo Sundström

Files in Category:Photographs by Hugo Sundström

Navigation menu

Search