Commons:Deletion requests/First Lady Portraits

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.

First Lady Portraits

[edit]

These are commissioned work by the Executive Office, not a work OF a member of the Executive Office. The artist retains the copyright and there is no evidence that those rights were terminated. A work for hire does NOT terminate the copyrights of the artist. One simple example is going to Sears for a portrait; Sears retains the copyright and you cannot make legal duplicates on your own without purchasing the copyright or purchasing additional photos:

In addition, all of these inappropriately had copyright violation notices removed, but not listed here:

"If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request..." Additionally, all uploaders were previously notified of copyvio.
File:Elizabeth Truman.gif
File:Mamie eisenhower.gif
File:Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy.gif
File:MrsJohnson.png
File:Pat nixon.jpg
File:Betty Ford.gif
File:Rosalynn Carter official White House portrait.gif
File:Nancy Reagan official White House portrait.jpg
File:Anna Eleanor Roosevelt.gif
File:Lou Henry Hoover.jpg
File:Barbara Bush.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Hillary Clinton official White House portrait.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

69.153.70.180 04:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Artists that accept commissions from the US Government know that the work wil be PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um...I'm sorry, but where do you get that impression/statement? Legally, there is nothing to back that up. In fact two other portraits have already been removed because the artist explicitly had a copyright emblazoned on his website regarding said paintings. 69.153.70.180 19:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used the same reasoning in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discovery of the Land1.jpg, but that one has not been decided yet. Is not this the same as with the Category:Vietnam Veterans Memorial? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see this question earlier. I'll be honest, I don't know. I'm not really interested in those right now. This one is enough on my plate. 68.213.169.171 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep we've been through this before ... Portraits with unclear copyright status from the U.S. Federal Government and Wikipedia: Possibly unfree images/US government portraits. I also want to add that unless the user is willing to register for an account, we should just ignore this request as a giant waste of time. Evrik (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what?!? I do not have to be a registered user to make such comments or make any other contributions or to point out problems/correct copyright issues. Last I checked, this is "A database of <insert latest number here> freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute," not just registered users. I choose not to be registered and have that right.
As for the fact that you've had this debate before, the things you cite have a lot of people opposing a particular user...you, but absolutely nothing was decided other than a dispute exists between you, and others, regarding these paintings. I have absolutely no problem including them as PD works, but there is no evidence that the paintings are PD. 69.153.70.180 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For completeness, I add the two files that had been speedily deleted but were now restored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT!?! Why were they restored!?! 69.153.70.180 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there had been no discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I didn't think we needed a discussion in cases where there is a blatant copyvio. The artist even claims copyright on said image. There is NO reason the Clinton image should have been restored. As precedent, this image proves that those arguing for a keep are, quite frankly, completely wrong. 69.153.70.180 07:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, that is just a blanket copyright notice of a whole group of painters. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedia:Copyrights#U.S._government_photographs
  2. There is no reason that the Clinton image should have been retained. It is not a public domain image. The artist claims a copyright on both the painting and the digital rendering of the painting and the source of the image was the artist's website. There is no conclusive proof the image was released to PD. 69.153.70.180 07:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States, these images are not ok even if in a public setting. 69.153.70.180 07:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your links do not work and/or are not relevant. The enwp page about this is en:Work of the United States Government#Works produced by contractors. The question is if the painter had a contract like NASA or not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No. NASA is part of the government, these painters are not. It is incumbent upon those placing the images here to prove they are PD, not the other way around. No one has yet shown that the artists are government employees or that they released the copyright of said image.
  2. Please explain why an artists' claim on his website that both the image on Commons and the painting it's made from are both copyrighted is not relevant?!?
  3. How does this not apply? For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. 69.153.70.180 16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say we close this speedily and stop wasting our time. These are all works for hire and are PD. Evrik (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, when did someone die and leave you in charge? You don't make edicts and you have yet to show where, for example, the artist who created the Hilary Clinton portrait suddenly gave up his copyright on the portrait. The image there was pulled directly from his website and he claims copyright on that website. Unless you can show where he gave up that right, the image needs to go. Likewise, all of these images need to go too, as there is no explicit retraction of copyright by the author(s). 68.213.169.171 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To paraphrase United States copyright law: The author generally is the person who conceives of the copyrightable expression and fixes it or causes it to be fixed in a tangible form. "Works made for hire" are an important exception of this rule: When a work is "made for hire", within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the employer or commissioning party, who pays for creation of the work, is deemed the author, rather than the employee or commissioned party who actually conceives and fixes the expression (or causes its fixation).
I say we close this speedily and stop wasting our time. Evrik (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are really quoting Wikipedia for your source? A work for hire in this case is in respect to an employer and an employee within the same company. The nuances of a contracted work are another matter altogether. To continue with the Hillary Clinton painting, this image (not the painting, but the image) came from the author's website and is copyrighted. Your argument only holds any form of water if it came from a public site. This one doesn't hold any water because it IS a copyrighted image no matter what your view is. It needs to go no matter what. I still contend that the rest are also problematic and should be removed, but I don't see how you can disagree on this one. 68.213.169.171 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing up irrelevant issues. It does not matter where the image file came from, according to {{PD-Art}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep dodging the question. Where did they give up those copyrights? The answer is, they haven't and you cannot point to one page that states unequivocally they did. I'm NOT saying they didn't, per se, but there is no evidence to support the assertion that they gave up all copyrights.
According to your own interpretation that these were always PD images, {{PD-Art}} doesn't apply because these weren't ever copyrighted. Even if you contend they were copyrighted until they were given to the government (again, no evidence to back this up, but let's assume so for the sake of argument), this template still doesn't apply because the artists haven't been dead for more than 70 years. Please read the associated guidelines and you'll find these tags (no matter how you feel about them) are not appropriate for these images (though they may be just fine for other related images). 68.213.169.171 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. My point with mentioning PD-Art was that one cannot claim copyright on a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art does if the original does not have copyright. (Because you brought up the issue of the image file.) I am not dodging the central question, but one would probably need to see the contract to decide the issue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's my point. You cannot assume that it is PD without knowing the details or without an explicit revocation of the rights. The default is that you have to prove that it is PD, not the other way around. 68.213.169.171 08:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Deindent) Ok, I would have assumed that these portraits were commissioned by the Federal Government, but it seems from reading previous deletion debates that for example a Secretary of Labor would have his/her portrait painted after friends had collected money for it. How is this for POTUS and his wife? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Has it been clearly stated anywhere that this isn't the case? Near as I can tell, it hasn't, just the assumption the image is PD when, in fact, there is no clear declaration as to who owns the copyright (if it isn't the artist...who claims it). Respectfully, it is not my responsibility to prove who does own it. It is enough that there is nothing that clearly states the image is PD. 68.213.169.171 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per above. Slow day, huh? 174.148.203.143 03:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above says there is a question regarding the copyright. Surely you meant to delete? Your snide remark isn't helpful or appropriate. 68.213.169.171 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/First_Lady_Portraits&oldid=122389079"