Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Djuna Barnes - Joyce.gif

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.

Image:Djuna Barnes - Joyce.gif

[edit]

Djuna Barnes died in 1982, which is less than 70 years ago. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstand the rules. It was published in the United States before January 1, 1923; doesn't that make it PD-US? Celithemis 09:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PD is applicable for documents where the author died more than 70 years ago, not the age of the document. For this to apply, documents of approximately 100 years and more can comply. Captain Scarlet 11:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(When I first noticed the image, it had the default {{PD-Art}} tag which only mentions the author's lifespan plus 70 years. This was changed to specify {{PD-US}} between the time I noticed it and the time I submitted it here.) I agree that if {{PD-US}} is applicable, it might indeed be okay, because of how US copyright applies to American works. However, it is my understanding that Barnes lived in France at the time this work was created, which might mean that French copyright law is involved as well (even if the work was also published in the United States), and if the work was still copyrighted in France in 1996 when the URAA was passed in the US, it is my understanding that it would also be covered by the extended US copyright. As this seems likely, I doubt the image is actually in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did pick the wrong tag when uploading and had to correct it.
Barnes drew this for a U.S. magazine so its first publication was U.S. -- as far as I know, it was never published in France at all. It probably was drawn there, though. Celithemis 11:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question, then, is whether French copyright is worded in such a way that it covers this work. The first paragraph of the semi-official translation suggests to me that the fact that it was created in France means it is covered by French copyright law. I'm therefore going to have to go with  Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it should be covered by French copyright law if it was never published in France. It is the publication place which matters. Yann 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Article L111-1: "The author of a work of the mind shall enjoy in that work, by the mere fact of its creation, an exclusive incorporeal property right which shall be enforceable against all persons." From Article L111-2: "A work shall be deemed to have been created, irrespective of any public disclosure…" —LX (talk, contribs) 09:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Yann 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is an obvious keep. Commons rules do not require a picture to be in the public domain in every single country in the world in order for it to be uploaded here. Commons policy is that the picture must be in the public domain in the US, and in the country of origin (i.e., the country of first publication - see Article 5 of the Berne Convention). In this case, the country of origin is the US because the picture was first published in the US. Therefore, for Commons' purposes the picture is PD, regardless of its status in France. -- Arvind 21:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't my interpretation. As I see it, your reasoning would have been spot on if the work were first published in France as opposed to merely created there, but it isn't what happened in this case, and French law therefore has no relevance under Berne or TRIPS or the URAA (or, for that matter, commons policies) because in law it is not treated as the country of origin or source country. I'll try and make my reasoning clearer:
1. The URAA implements TRIPS, and restored copyright because TRIPS requires full compliance with the Berne Convention which the US wasn't doing.
2. Article 5 of the Berne Convention defines the "country of origin" as the country where the work was first published, not where it was created. In international copyright law, the place where a work was created is only very rarely relevant, whatever national regimes may say.
3. This work was first published in the US, therefore for the purposes of the Berne Convention (and, thus, of TRIPS and the URAA) the "country of origin" (a.k.a. the source country) is the US, not France. Take a look at the definition of "source country" in s. 104A(h)(8)(c) of Title 17 of the US Code (which was inserted by the URAA). Copyright isn't "restored" by the URAA because this doesn't fall under the URAA's definition of a "restored work" [104A(h)(6)].
4. Therefore, this work is eligible for PD both in US law and for commons purposes, because the country of origin of this photo is the US whether you look at it under Berne, TRIPS, the URAA or Commons policies.
If you still disagree, could you please explain in more detail which bit of this you disagree with and why, so I can clarify / support it as needed? -- Arvind 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the US Copyright Office's circular on URAA (#38b here), URAA restored copyrights only on works that met all four of these requirements:
  1. At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible country. An eligible country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), or is subject to a presidential proclamation that extends restored copyright protection to that country on the basis of reciprocal treatment to the works of U. S. nationals or domiciliaries;
  2. The work is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of the term of protection;
  3. The work is in the public domain in the United States because the work did not comply with formalities imposed at any time by the U. S. law,4 the work lacked subject matter protection in the United States in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, or the work lacked national eligibility in the United States; and
  4. If published, the work must have first been published in an eligible country and must not have been published in the United States during the 30-day period following its first publication in that eligible country.
This might fail criterion #1 depending on how exactly the term "domiciliary" is defined in this context; I don't think Barnes had yet taken up long-term residence in France at the time she drew this (she would return to the US before coming to Europe again to stay). It definitely fails #4, since it was first published in the U.S. It fails #3 because it was in the public domain in 1996 due to copyright expiration, not due to failure to comply with formalities. So URAA doesn't appear to apply here; it's PD under U.S. law, at least. — Celithemis 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. That's a convincing argument. It might still be worthwhile to comment on its status in France in the image description. (As I understand, it is still copyrighted there, even though this doesn't affect its status in the US per the above.) —LX (talk, contribs) 05:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Djuna_Barnes_-_Joyce.gif&oldid=87492324"