Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Noemí Casado

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 uploaded by Noemí Casado (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Three postcards and what looks like a professional photo portrait of a person, presumably from Spain, probably from the 1920s. These are not simple photographs, so {{PD-Spain-photo}} does not apply. We also do not know if they are in any way anonymous, since we don't know where and when they were published and don't see the context they were taken from, what's printed on the back of the postcards etc. So unless they are convincingly shown to be either in the public domain or under a free license, the files should be deleted and only be restored when enough years have passed to use {{PD-old-assumed}}. For Spain, that would be 130 years because of the duration=80 parameter to reflect the 80 years term still used for older works.

Rosenzweig τ 09:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. These are not amateur snapshots, but professionally produced portraits and postcards. A photograph doesn't have to be art to be considered not simple. --Rosenzweig τ 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the license was meant to provide special status for commercial photography, the wording would have included commercial photography in Spanish. In a simple photograph, you press the shutter, whether in a studio, or outdoor, or in your home. --RAN (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A photograph also doesn't have to be commercial to be considered not simple. Please stop with your straw man arguments. --Rosenzweig τ 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said the images were "professional … not simple photographs" in your deletion argument, professional_photography=commercial_photography, a person who takes photographs and asks for money in exchange for the image that is produced. So, not a strawman argument, just quoting the exact argument that you made for deletion. --RAN (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want the distinction between simple photographs and not simple photographs to be clearer to everyone, please cite some case law so we can look at what courts have ruled as simple or not-simple. --RAN (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all. Per the documentation at PD-Spain-photo. Simple photos are not "[works of] artistic character of the photographic reproduction [in fact representation], which everyday use and the law only accept as converging when the photographer adds to the work a product of his/her intelligence, an act of personal character that transcends a simple reproduction...". Arguments made above say that photos do not need to be art to be protected by the longer term, but Spanish law pretty clearly insists that they do. The images in this deletion request to not meet this art standard. They are simple photographs and should be kept. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Interesting discussion. I tried to understand the Spanish copyright law, https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/1996/BOE-A-1996-8930-consolidado.pdf . It appears that (art 10) “Son objeto de propiedad intelectual todas las creaciones originales literarias, artísticas o científicas expresadas por cualquier medio o soporte, tangible o intangible, actualmente conocido o que se invente en el futuro, comprendiéndose entre ellas: ….(a, b, c…f, g) h: Las obras fotográficas y las expresadas por procedimiento análogo a la fotografía.” Translated with Google translate: “All original literary, artistic or scientific creations expressed by any means or support, tangible or intangible, currently known or invented in the future, are subject to intellectual property, including: ….(a, b, c…f , g) h: Photographic works and those expressed by a procedure analogous to photography.”

So I conclude that photographic works are in general protected (with the normal duration valid within EU). However, an exception to this general rule has been made in Article 128:

“La protección de las meras fotografías = Artículo 128. De las meras fotografías. Quien realice una fotografía u otra reproducción obtenida por procedimiento análogo a aquélla, cuando ni una ni otra tengan el carácter de obras protegidas en el Libro I, goza del derecho exclusivo de autorizar su reproducción, distribución y comunicación pública, en los mismos términos reconocidos en la presente Ley a los autores de obras fotográficas. Este derecho tendrá una duración de veinticinco años computados desde el día 1 de enero del año siguiente a la fecha de realización de la fotografía o reproducción.” “Protection of mere photographs = Article 128. Of mere photographs. Whoever takes a photograph or other reproduction obtained by a procedure similar to that, when neither one nor the other have the nature of protected works in Book I, enjoys the exclusive right to authorize its reproduction, distribution and public communication, in the same terms recognized in this Law to the authors of photographic works. This right will have a duration of twenty-five years computed from January 1 of the year following the date of taking the photograph or reproduction.”

So “Las meras fotografías” are protected for a more limited time, 25 years. The next question would be, what does “Las meras fotografías” mean?

I did find two Spanish texts to explain.

  1. Per [1] (from a law firm). Translated: “The difference between photographic work or mere photography is established in the Spanish Intellectual Property Law. In order for a photograph to be considered by law as a photographic work, it must meet certain requirements such as originality and that it be artistic. Mere photography, on the other hand, is one where the creative participation of the author is minimal, there is nothing original about it. This photograph does not have any new contribution that the author has made, which has only limited itself to reflecting a reality.” (The website gives in the following text advice how to protect your “mere photo”.)
  2. Per [2]) (blog of a lawyer). Translated: “What is considered a mere photograph? This is any photograph that does not have the nature of a photographic work. Therefore, most of the photos are included in this category.” (Follows the law text).

Based on these interpretation the images as listed by Rosenzweig for deletion can be kept imho. In these four photos, though technically difficult to make, especially in the 1920’s, the photographer has made a “mere” registration of reality, without adding artistic content. So the photos appear correctly licensed with {{PD-Spain-photo}}. --Ellywa (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Noemí_Casado&oldid=714313427"