Commons:Deletion requests/Fonds Michel Chomarat
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.
Fonds Michel Chomarat
[edit]English: Screenshots of non-free media taken from this website. French: Captures d'écrans de l'exposition virtuelle du fonds Chomarat d'images qui ne sont pas dans le domaine public, puisque trop récentes.
- File:Capture d’écran 2023-06-02 à 20.38.19.png Taken during WWII, unlikely to be public domain (photographie prise pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, peu probable que le photographe soit mort avant 1954)
- File:Capture d’écran 2023-06-02 à 20.39.24.png Might be public domain? (Peut-être dans le domaine public ?)
Léna (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep Republishing historic public domain images does not transfer the copyright, or restart the copyright clock. The image of the two children appears to be from the 1920s1870s. --RAN (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)- Yes, but we need some proof these images are in the public domain in the first place. What are the arguments to date the image of the two children to 1920s and not 1940s or 1950s ? Same for the card game, it can be from the 19th century, but what are the arguments for this ? Léna (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- We generally rely on Occam's Razor, we accept the simplest explanation and we don't delete on hypothetical speculation. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) could be used to denigrate any image. For instance: Who took the picture? It must be the named photographer, right? What if the photographer was in the bathroom, and an assistant pressed the shutter release. What if the photographer's spouse pressed the shutter release while the photographer adjusted a light. What if a monkey entered the photo studio while the photographer, their spouse, and the photographer's assistant, were inattentive and the monkey pressed the shutter release. What if the camera was on a random timer, and no one was responsible for pressing the shutter release. --RAN (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- What are you talking about ? Our policy is to have a basic proof that something is PD. That's why you CAN'T just use Template:PD-Art, but you also need a parameter which explicitly give the reason why the image is PD, both locally and in the US, usually with giving the date of death of the author or good enough assumption that they've been dead for the last 70 years. Léna (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." Your doubt consists of saying an image from the 1870s may be from the 1950s. Your conjecture does not rise to significant doubt, it is just the FUD I described above. No copyright jurisdiction allows an active copyright beyond 120 years from creation. --RAN (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh I see the issue, thanks for the clarification! My argument is not "the source says it's from the 1870s, but what if it is really from the 1950s ?", which I agree, would be FUD. My point is "in the source, there is no clear indication from when the picture has been taken, thus we can't say it's PD".
- I see you changed your claim from "1920s" to "1870s": could you point to me what in the source makes you think it's from the 1870s ? Léna (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." Your doubt consists of saying an image from the 1870s may be from the 1950s. Your conjecture does not rise to significant doubt, it is just the FUD I described above. No copyright jurisdiction allows an active copyright beyond 120 years from creation. --RAN (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- What are you talking about ? Our policy is to have a basic proof that something is PD. That's why you CAN'T just use Template:PD-Art, but you also need a parameter which explicitly give the reason why the image is PD, both locally and in the US, usually with giving the date of death of the author or good enough assumption that they've been dead for the last 70 years. Léna (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- We generally rely on Occam's Razor, we accept the simplest explanation and we don't delete on hypothetical speculation. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) could be used to denigrate any image. For instance: Who took the picture? It must be the named photographer, right? What if the photographer was in the bathroom, and an assistant pressed the shutter release. What if the photographer's spouse pressed the shutter release while the photographer adjusted a light. What if a monkey entered the photo studio while the photographer, their spouse, and the photographer's assistant, were inattentive and the monkey pressed the shutter release. What if the camera was on a random timer, and no one was responsible for pressing the shutter release. --RAN (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Both old public domain files. Dangerous work was prohibited in France in 1926, so the pictures of the 2 chimney sweeps is very likely taken before that. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep the first one. That is definitely a 19th Century photograph. 1870s would be consistent that that style of photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Obviously old enough. --Yann (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)