Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Julian Mandel 6.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Deleted. This is a contentious and complicated case. But in the end, we don't know whether "Julian Mandel" is a pseudonym or a real name, and we don't know when the person died. There is no reason to think the work was pseudonymous, and no reason to think the person died before 1938. (1937 is the cutoff year according to the relevant French law implementing EU directive OJ no. L290, and this was retroactive.) If anyone can provide any direct evidence concerning "Julian Mandel", this should be reexamined. For instance, if it can be shown that "Julian Mandel" was not the photographer's real name, then copyright expired after 70 years. But as of now, we only have speculation, and that's not good enough. Quadell (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Julian_Mandel_6.jpg

[edit]

Not a US work, and it's doubtful whether Julian Mandel died more than 70 years ago Phrood 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the PD-limit has been 50 years in France until the 93/98 CEE directive in Europe and the 27 septembre 1997 law in France. If Julian Mandel died before 1996-50=1946 (which is likely) his work was PD in 1997, and the 70 years limit does not apply (this limit won't free pictures to PD until 2017). Michelet-密是力 17:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. The 70 years pma rule is probably retroactive, and furthermore we generally apply EU law here at Commons. --Phrood 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the picture has been published in France, then (1) French law applies (2) It may have been PD in France before 1997 (3) The protection is retroactive only if another European country both did not apply the rule of shorter term, and had a longer protection at that time. As far as I remember, it could indeed have been retroactive if the work was still protected somewhere in Europe independently of the "rule of shorter term" of the Berne convention (assuming the picture was published in France, of course) - but in that case, under which legislation? Michelet-密是力 07:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
tallulahs.com takes the position "When the images were originally produced, they were illegal. Since no one claimed any copyrights, we are all free to use them". Whereas no one claimed copyrights when originally published Mandel's pictures should be considered "anonymous or pseudonymous works", and according to the EU rules copyrights expired "70 years after publication". Which is clearly the case, since these pictures were published in 1932 at the very latest, probably much earlier than that. So according to either rule, the old French rule "50 years after the artist died" or the EU rule "70 years after publication", these pictures are now in the public domain. Fernande 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the rules on anonymous works only apply if no author can be determined, they do not depend on whether copyright was "claimed". --Phrood 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "EU law", CEE directives are translated in national laws and are not laws by themselves. Michelet-密是力 07:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COPYRIGHT-FREE according to tallulahs.com's website. Julian Mandel was active during the 1915-1932 period; his most recent pictures date from 1932 Fernande 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Mandel was indeed based in France. If copyright status is dependant on his date of death, we ought to find out what that date was. I didn't find that info in a quick google search. As Mandel seems to have produced some valuable images in use on Wiki projects, it may be worth while to do some research to find out. If the "70 years from publication" argument above is valid (if so, perhaps we should have something about that at Commons:Licensing?) the image appears ok on that basis alone. -- Infrogmation 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is a French publication then EU law applies and that's till 70 years after death (it was definitely retrospective in the UK and so it probably is in France). If beautiful tasteful nudes were illegal in 1920s France it's news to me. (The model was famous and a noted artist in her own right.) Copyright being claimed is a US peculiarity, the EU's (and most other places') law just requires that art be produced; I've seen no evidence that "Julian Mandel" was anything other than the guy's name and some web sites claim he had a University Scholarship named after him. Please somebody prove me wrong because some of these pictures are very high quality indeed. --Simonxag 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and most of the models as well... that one is extraordinary - that guy was a real artist.
see Helen and Sam Mandel and Anita and Julian Mandel Educational Scholarship for info on that scholarship. It is to provide a "need-based scholarship" for incoming freshmen; there is nothing in the dedication to suggest any connection with the arts or to the artist discussed here. Fernande 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see http://www.darrenmccoy.com/?p=102 "In Nude photography, 1840-1920, Peter Marshall notes: “In the prevailing moral climate at the time of the invention of photography, the only officially sanctioned photography of the body was for the production of artist’s studies. Many of the surviving examples of Daguerreotypes are clearly not in this genre but have a sensuality that clearly implies they were designed as erotic or pornographic images". Daguerreotypes were from an earlier period, but I doubt whether the moral climate had changed all that much by the 1920s. It is only recently that pictures like Mandel's are considered "art" rather than pornographic. Fernande 19:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very same source says Julian Mandel became known in the 1920s and 1930s for his exceptional photographs of the female form. Participating in the German “new age outdoor movement,” Mandel took numerous pictures in natural settings, publishing them through the Paris-based studios of A. Noyer and PC Paris. A Johns Hopkins University scholarship was named in his honor. Can we assume from this source that the artist remained effectively anonymous for 70 years after publication? Hardly, but that is what it would take for the publication date to be the start of the 70 years rather than the death date. --Simonxag 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is in color. The shoes are ox blood red. That makes it dated later than 1920s because the color process was not available until into the 1930s -- there is no sense in publishing something that is questionable. It should be deleted. 65.196.169.194 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have left an identical comment twice; I replied to the version further down. -- Infrogmation 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death / pseudonym

[edit]

Three questions, then: Since "Julian Mandel" last published in ~ 1930 (a) He may have died before 1937, which puts his work in public domain in 2007 under the 70 ypm rule. (b) He may have died before 1946, which put his work in public domain under French law unless it was protected in another European country that does not apply the rule of shorter term (afaik, Spain or Germany). (c) "Julian Mandel" may have been a pseudonym, and in that case the delay (50 or 70) is counted from the publication date, unless the real name of the author has been revealed before his death. The short biography says that he "raised a family" in Brazil after 1932, which suggests that he died much later. Michelet-密是力 08:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are good reasons to assume that "Julian Mandel" is not the real name of the artist, but a pseudonym. (1) According to the short biography mentioned above "Although Mandel's works were considered illegal, he considered himself an artist, and in a bold move for the time, signed his name to the fronts of his work". Signing with his real name would have made him liable to persecution, and I doubt whether he would have gone that far to proclaim his beliefs regarding his work. (2) Most artists of the "Belle Epoch" who produced nude photographs used pseudonyms. (3) Searching the web for a biography of Julian Mandel comes up void (except for the short biography of tallulahs.com). Even wikipedia doesn't have a biography. Fernande 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(This discussion can be the source of an embryo en:Julian Mandel article ;o) I was tempted to follow that "pseudonym" idea, until I saw that he "raised a family in Brazil": this is not what a pseudonym is expected to do... I can't explain that kind of information the name was a pseudonym and the identity was not revealed. Michelet-密是力 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the web is notoriously unreliable and the short biography at tallulahs.com is no exception. As I mentioned above, I find it highly unlikely that the artist is in any way connected to that endowment at Johns Hopkins University to provide scholarships for students from Brooklyn, and this "info" about raising a family in Brazil after he had already a career as a photographer behind him looks very suspicious as well. Since they don't provide a source for that "info" we should disregard it. Fernande 07:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have access to photographer databases or biographical databases such as WBIS? --Phrood 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a note on the village pump. Michelet-密是力 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed at 98% for me: the link to the scholarship involves another "Julian Mandel" (see discussion at en:talk:Julian Mandel. Michelet-密是力 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. There is also a Brazilian filmmaker Julien Mandel who may be or may not be the same person as the photographer mentioned on Arquivos Fotográficos. These websites could very well be the source of tallulahs.com's claim that Julian Mandel eventually settled in Brazil. The problem with that claim is of course that there is nothing on those webpages to indicate a connection between the Brazilian "Julien Mandel" and the French "Julian Mandel". So unless there is a reliable source that shows that Julian and Julien are one and the same person it is far more likely that those are two different people. After all, "Mandel" is a faily common surname, and there are likely several Julian/Julien Mandel's around.
In conclusion, despite our best efforts there is no reliable biographical information on the French photographer Julian Mandel, and the question of what happened with the artist after 1932 remains unresolved. That is sufficient reason to consider his work "anonymous or pseudonymous" Fernande 14:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment We have a curious case with Julian Mandel, whose work is well known but who as a person (or pseudonym) is mysterious. It would be good to clear it up a bit more if possible; what other avenues might we try exploring? Perhaps writting to the Tallulahs.com site and asking the source of their info? -- Infrogmation 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the entry en:Julian Mandel now states all that could be clarified seen from here - which boils down to comments on his work, and not a single piece of confirmed information on biography. The scholarship is clearly a "false positive", the "Julian Mandel" that pops up by searching "Brazil + Mandel" appears in recent films, is not the same one, and is likely to be the origin of this Tallulah.com remark. This site deserves no sympathy anyway, writing that "Since no one claimed any copyrights, we are all free to use them" shows someone that has no idea of author's right under the Berne convention, and thinks the 1950 US law on copyright still rules the world. Exploring other avenues ? what is left appear as faint mountain goat's trails to me... ;o) Michelet-密是力 06:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like having something more definitive before making a vote, but in this case I'll vote for a provisional Keep (unless any new information surfaces giving reason to reconsider). The photographs attributed to "Julian Mandel" seem to be the product of a person or pseudonym who stopped work more than 70 years ago. No evidence he was alive later nor that any copyright has been claimed on his work in recent generations. -- Infrogmation 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here´s a site from Belgium, naming him Julien too and complaining that some sellers have tried to claim to be the copyright owners, but they were not impressed and show their collection as ever:
from http://www.magasinpittoresque.be/images-erotiques/carte-postales.htm
.... Malheureusement, alors qu'il n'en sont pas les photographes et qu'il serait bien difficile d'établir qui sont les ayant droit de ces images, probablement entrées dans le domaine public, certains vendeurs s'attribuent de façon grotesque un pseudo copywright, que ne justifie en aucune manière la simple possession de l'objet....
btw: the pics of Léo are very nice too .... for commons  :-) Mutter Erde 12:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is in color. The shoes are ox blood red. That makes it dated later than 1920s because the color process was not available until into the 1930s -- there is no sense in publishing something that is questionable. It should be deleted. 65.196.169.194 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Which specific photo are you talking about? 2) You may be working on a mistaken assumption-- certainly there was color photography before the 1930s (though more rare), and published images such as post cards often used printing techniques to add color to postcards and posters even when the original photo was in sepia or b&w. -- Infrogmation 20:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest for 65.196.169.194 to go see an ophthalmologist ASAP, since (s)he seems to have a vision problem, seeing colors where there are none. And even if the picture were colored (which is not the case) it would be meaningless, since (1) color photography was already known in the 19th century, see the article on color photography, and (2) in the early 20th century it was common practice to handcolor photographs, see e.g. Image:FolliesBergereBoxCostume.jpg Fernande 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on French IP Laws

[edit]

Concerning anonymous works, the protecton is 70 years from the year following publication. If the author claimed the work before he died, it is no more concidered anonymous by the law and general rules apply. The 70 year period is extended by somewhat 9 years from 1939 to 1948. That would apply also in that case, So if we concider the 70 years rule apply it is indeed 79 year and 100 years if the author died for the nation.--195.6.25.115 16:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The war extensions no longer applies. It was removed by the Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) in February 2007. Yann 23:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per de:Julien Mandel, the photographer's death date and hence the public domain status of the work seems to have been established, so restoring. -- Infrogmation 13:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Julian_Mandel_6.jpg&oldid=343282350"