Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DimSum38

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 uploaded by DimSum38 (talk · contribs)

Claimed as {{PD-UKGov}} without evidence. One is author unknown, the others are by Bassano Ltd, Olive Edis (d. 1955), and Elliot & Fry, none of whom were UK government employees.

January (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have more questions than answers. I didn't look at every notice, but for those I looked the original creation of those works is attributed to the studio, not to their individual photographers. If the UK law does not have the notion of corporate authorship, does that not categorise those works as "anonymous" (or "unknown photographer")? If so, the duration is 70 years after creation or 70 years after being made available to the public? And, for photographs, made available to the public is defined as exhibition or communication to the public? I'm not sure how that applies in actual cases, but those portrait photographs were certainly made to be legally used and shown, not to be secret. The years documented in the notices of the National Portrait Galery are, I suppose, the years of creation? Unless there is evidence that a work was communicated only at a later year, can we not safely assume that works of this type were indeed exhibited or communicated near the time of their creation? If so, the originals from before 1944 would be in the public domain in the UK? And those from before 1926 would be in the public domain in the U.S. also? If the above makes sense (I'm sure someone will tell if it doesn't), then should we keep the pre-1926 works and delete the post-1925 works? Also, the works from the studios Elliot & Fry and Bassano Ltd were transferred to the NPG [1]. The presence of the copyright notice to the sole name of the NPG (even for the works created after 1943) suggests that the copyrights were transferred to the NPG. As the NPG is a "non-departmental public body", are its copyrights private copyrights or government copyrights? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lionel Logue 3.jpg, a Bassano Ltd photo sourced to NPG, it was concluded that {{PD-UK-unknown}} did not apply so if the same reasoning applies here we could only keep images where it is established that the photographer died before 1926 (I excluded any such images from this DR for that reason). I'm not sure we can assume the presence of an NPG copyright notice implies a transfer of copyright since they seem to have the same notice on all images on their website; this one for example (one of this user's uploads that I excluded from this DR) would already have been in the public domain by the time they acquired it, but in any case non-departmental public bodies in the UK are non-governmental organisations so Crown Copyright would not apply. January (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lionel Logue 3.jpg" can't be a reference case. The deletion suggestions didn't rise much above 'the NPG is unkind'. The request was closed without any statement of a rationale. The "unknown" aspect was raised and not debated. Maybe some information could be found in books such as Bevis Hillier, Victorian studio photographs from the collections of Studio Bassano and Elliott & Fry, London (1975). For those photographs that are credited to the studio, it seems that they weren't credited to a particular photograph. At least, I didn't find any indication to the contrary anywhere. If anyone were in a position to identify the authors, it's the owner of the negatives, the NPG, and for those photos they credit the studio, not individual photographers. When a photographer is identifiable, as for the early photos credited to Bassano personally, they mention it. The Museum of London also credits the studio [2]. If the photographers weren't identified, there's nothing we can do about it. In the circumstances, unless someone finds anything to contradict the credit explicitly written, I think it is safe to conclude that those are instances of anonymous or unknown. That doesn't change the situation for most files listed above, but it could save at least a few of them.

(The NPG places a copyright notice on all files because, as we know, they claim copyrights on the reproductions even when that copyright does not relate to the original images. But my point was different. What I was noting is that the post-1943 Elliot & Fry and Bassano Ltd photos on the NPG website had only a copyright notice to the NPG, whereas if the originals had a different copyright owner, there should be also some additional notice to that effect. The fact that the NPG owns or not the copyrights on the originals might have made a difference for the 1926-1943 works, if the NPG had been a non-departmental governmental body, but that is moot if it is a non-departmental non-governmental body.)

-- Asclepias (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PD-UKGov incorrectly claimed by the uploader who shows no inclination to address the problems on an individual basis. Most are not PD-UK of any sort. Asclepias raises some interesting questions which are not central to this process in my view. Graemp (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think January has established that none of the images nominated above are PD-UKGov. After this deletion request was opened, the uploader changed the status tags from PD-UKGov to PD-old-70. Of course, that does not help, as he can't state that an unidentified person has been dead for 70 years, and it is even an impossibility when the photo was created less than 70 years ago. Although the participation of the uploader here might have been nice, I think it can be assumed that no more information about those images is available to him than to anyone else. The question is: are some files PD-[something] or otherwise free? From the available informations discussed above, it seems that the pre-1926 photos can qualify for the anonymous or unknown tags. If this conclusion is agreed upon, then it could be useful also in the case of other photos in the same situation credited to the studios Elliot & Fry, Bassano Ltd, Vandyk, Bassano and Vandyk and whose individual photographers are unknown. There may be also the question if users want to upload files that originate from the NPG, considering its claim of copyright on all reproductions of free originals, but that's a different question. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about how the principle above applies to the nominated files, my comment meant that I was leaning to keep File:Joseph Sullivan MP.jpg (1923), File:Sir Ben Turner.jpg (1923), File:William Wedgewood-Benn.jpg (1919), File:Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire.jpg (PD-old), File:Ronald McNeill, 1st Baron Cushendun.jpg (1923), ~~File:William Peel, 1st Earl Peel.jpg (1910)~~ and to delete all the other nominated files. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The {{PD-old}} tag on File:William Peel, 1st Earl Peel.jpg is wrong, photographer w:Olive Edis died in 1955 so it's not PD in the UK. January (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I had forgotten that mention about Olive Edis. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that the uploader turned out to be a sock of Marquis de la Eirron (see enwp investigation), who was blocked on both enwp and here for persistent copyright violations. I have now also blocked this account. January (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 11:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DimSum38

Files uploaded by DimSum38 (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search