Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg

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:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg

[edit]

Reasons for deletion request :

  • 1) According to the US law, this is PD if copyright has not been renewed and the work has been published. This is not the famous known picture but a raw attempt (threads are visible). The notice says publication occurs “circa 1948”. But for this attempt, when and where exactly ? Copyright deposit is not publication. Could the real references of publication be mentioned ? If publication is missing, this delivery made by Congress Library is just a robbery. If not published, PD occurs 70 years after author's death.
  • 2) By now, general international rule about author's rights is the Convention of Bern and the USA are part of it now (after a long time when considering art works as commercial products they didn't want to join it). This convention gives rights to authors, whatever their nationality and the place of creation. Thus an american work for example is protected in Germany by german laws. Many countries never recognised for themselves and for the author's works the former copyright system of the USA and the shorter term has nothing to do with that. So you have to check if protection is delayed according to the Bern convention. And if you can prove it, tag must be changed. Otherwise downloading this picture in other countries than the USA is prosecutable. It would be awkward !
  • 3) This photograph shows two paintings of Salvador Dali whose representation is not free and is protected 70 years long after Dali's death.

--B.navez (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. : why is the copyright tag of this picture, the one published in Time magazine, so different ??[reply]

Strong keep and speedy close I trust the Library of Congress on this issue, as they have all the information on it. Claiming that they are engaging in a massive act of theft is not credible. The copyrighted work in question is not the main focus of the picture, it is merely incidental, and as for the P.S. - ever think that the final version might have been more likely to have been renewed? This nomination is frankly ridiculous. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read first that : Copyright and other restrictions that apply to publication/distribution of images: assessing the risk of using a P&P Image and note that The information [ ] applies to use of material in the United States. Use outside the U.S. is governed by the laws of the country in which the material is being used. (so this picture should be -as for fair use- only put on en:WP according to Commons policy) and then read that : Philippe Halsman : rights and restrictions information and note that for photographs provided for the Library's collections, rights are reserved (so the better way to be sure would be you ask the Halsman estate and the Library Congress). Note also The Library denies any responsability about using images : when No known restrictions on publication is mentioned, These facts do not mean the image is in the public domain, but do indicate that no evidence has been found to show that restrictions apply (on [1] too).
--B.navez (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please read also that : Gala-Salvador Dalí Foundation : Copyright as Dali's foundation deals with copyrights worldwide including managing some of Dali's photographers' rights.
  • Keep The research of the U.S. Library of Congress, which is the supervising agency of the U.S. Copyright Office and houses the copyright reading room where copyright registrations and renewals are recorded, is authorative and certainly trumps amateur research and musings. And that research indicates that while the picture was not actually published copyright was recorded in 1948 (record #J3769) but not renewed, so the usage of the {{PD-US-not renewed}} is appropriate. User:B.navez is free of course to contact the LoC or the Halsmann estate to ask for counterveiling evidence, but absent such evidence we would start deleting pictures based on speculation rather than fact. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent this message to the Dali foudation and will do the same to the Halsman estate :
Dear Sirs,
I am a contributor on Wikimedia Commons, a database of freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute. We have currently about this picture of Dali atomicus a dispute.
Despite the Library of Congress gives ability to download the file and despite date of creation and lacking of copyright renewal might let conclude to public domain status according to US laws, I contest this status considering some arguments which I have exposed in the dispute.
Could you please on legal basements give me your position ?
Does this picture belong to public domain in the USA, considering the laws in this country on copyright appliable for creations made in 1948 ?
If right, does the public domain status extend to most of the other countries ?
I think the same question has to be put to the Philippe Halsman estate too. Could you deal with them for the response or give me their mail address. Otherwise I will send them a letter.
Yours, gratefully
B. Navez
--B.navez (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If right, does the public domain status extend to most of the other countries ?"
To be clear, the discussion here is whether the picture is appropriately tagged as {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Whether the {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag is an appropriate copyright tag for Commons is an entirely different questions with wider ramifications that has to be discussed elsewhere. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of choice or voting but a matter of law and juridic arguments.
Curiously, this is the only Halman's photograph on the Library of Congress whose rights are presented as apparently not restricted. All other pictures are protected. It proves Halsman has generally done the right things for copyrights.
This very picture seems to be the raw material just used as an evidence deposit for the famous published picture (the one without the threads, without the assistants and with the central frame not empty). If the published picture is not in the public domain, so the original gelatin film is not too, despite the LoC avaibility (even the best can fail !). On the contrary if the published picture is in PD (according to the Halsman estate declarations, it doesn't fit with their general intentions), the raw film might be also PD but this question has to be discussed.
Question is not just about appropriate tagging but really about deletion from Commons. If PD is worldwide, there is definitely no problem anymore, but if not worldwide, tag is just OK for the USA and the picture should be moved from Commons (as the other in the same case).
Presence of Dali's paintings is not incidental ! That is one the keys of the picture : the painting is Lena atomica here in 1948 though it is known to have been finished in 1949. 3D representations of paintings are not considered as PD, eventually it could be a fair use but the tag is then inappropriate. All this creation is in relation with the Hiroshima bombing and is more than a simple photograph, rather a pictural composition using photography.
In doubt I think it would be wiser to put it off till evidence is given LoC has not made an error.
--B.navez (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Rationale provided by Brian0918 (talk · contribs) is pretty straightforward here. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - the author of the photograph was a U.S citizen, copyright agreements with other countries means that this photograph is out of copyright in most of the world at least, and no proof of copyright anywhere was provided Movieevery (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Do we have documentation for the location where this photograph was shot and first published? The Library of Congress is an authoritative source for whether it's public domain in the United States, but the question for Commons hosting is whether some other country has a competing claim. The EU life + 70 standard applies to many of Dali's works. If there's credible evidence that this work was created and published on American soil then it's good to host here. Otherwise it ought to be transwikied to English Wikipedia. Durova (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The only argument by B which has not been refuted to my satisfaction is the problem of the presence of Leda Atomica. Perhaps it's worth noting that this photograph is the first publication of Leda Atomica so no US copyright had previously attached to it. It, thus, wasn't a derivative work of the painting at the time. But did it become one once Leda Atomica had become copyrighted in the United States? I don't know. Is the usage de minimis anyway? I don't know. Should we trust the LOC? Perhaps. Haukurth (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that most of the main details of the Leda atomica are hidden by water and cats, and that what is visible is strongly tilted away from the camera, I'd find it difficult to consider the Leda Atomica a primary focus of the work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't assign copyright retroactively. If this was the first American publication later copyright claims have no bearing on the status of this picture. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The URAA restoration did assign a lot of retroactive copyright. Haukurth (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but restoration of copyright is different from retroactive assignation of copyright. If Leda Atomica was not published prior to the publication of Dali Atomicus, then Dali is not derivative work and Leda is simply part of the original composition, like the footstool, and that won't change with the later publication of Leda. In any case, this is all just speculation, if the Dali Foundation makes a credible claim of copyright it should be forwarded to the LoC for reassessment of their position. But as of now we have nothing tangible to challenge the LoC assessment with. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. When copyright is restored in work X then that also affects derivative works of X. Here's a primer on this: [2] Key quote: "The restored owner can seek compensation from those who have previously created and continue to exploit derivative works from the source material of the restored copyright owner." In this case specifically, however, it's possible that the painting is such a small part of the final work that this is not a problem. Haukurth (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's try an analogy: If I, under the pre-1978 U.S. copyright regime, had published and registered a book that contained an unpublished illustration created by a friend, and if that friend had later published and registered that illustration individually, my book is not derivative work since it does not make use of previously published material. If the copyright on the illustration lapses and is later restored that has bearing on all later derivative works (e.g. books including the illustration that were printed after the illustration was copyrighted or after the copyright had lapsed), but not on my book since my book was at the inception not a derivative work. I don't think a de minimis or incidental use defense would work since the painting was included deliberately. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If this hypothetical example all happened in the US then there is no conceivable way where your friend's copyright could have lapsed and then been restored. The key fact is that the URAA restoration granted certain rights (a second bite at the apple) only to non-US citizens. Haukurth (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • From your primer: "In addition, to be eligible for restoration, the work must have its origin outside of the United States. The work must not have been published within the United States within the thirty day period following publication in an eligible country.". If the original work was first published in the U.S. URAA restoration does not apply. But regardless, even if copyright is restored for whatever reasons, it is only applicable to derivative work, meaning only work that was created after copyright for the original work was claimed. Btw, from all we know, Leda Atomica was created in the U.S. since Dali lived in the U.S. until 1949. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • But regardless, even if copyright is restored for whatever reasons, it is only applicable to derivative work, meaning only work that was created after copyright for the original work was claimed. I don't think that's right. Or perhaps it depends on what you mean by the word 'claimed'. One of the major points of the Berne convention is that copyright does not need to be claimed, it attaches automatically and immediately. But you've got a good point with the US-origin information. Haukurth (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, but even if the illustration is created outside the U.S. by a foreign illustrator and the appearance in my book is the first publication worldwide, the (pre-1978) U.S. copyright regime applies, and creation is not sufficient to claim copyright. URAA restoration only applies to works of non-U.S. provenance which, after publication abroad, were eventually published in the U.S. and had fallen into the public domain in the U.S but stayed copyrighted at home. This is obviously not the case here. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It must be acceptable, in accordance with precedent, to agree with the Library of Congress!--Londoneye (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see here on Magnum Photos website, rights of Philip Halsman are represented and managed by the Magnum agency who presents Dali atomicus as copyrighted and though this picture has been stolen many times I have nowhere found any citation the picture to be in public domain.
    As clearly shown by Arden during this discussion the picture above is really the original film of Dali atomicus of which Ph. Halsman made a deposit to the LoC as an evidence of his rights.
    So, how could it be possible one picture is still protected and the other not. You entrust to an authority some evidence and then you would be said the original is not protected anymore because you have erased the threads on the published version. That's completely silly ! Both are still copyrighted or none. And as long as evidence has not been given that Dali atomicus was worldly in public domain too and as long as this enigma has not been resolved, I will consider we have no right to use freely the picture delivered by the LoC.
    Don't forget Wikimedia may exist because the USA have dropped their former copyright system. Otherwise you should be obliged to pay for any picture and any text you to be recognized as their author -or let anybody take it for one's exclusivity-. So don't be too in a hurry for appropriating some picture with a doubt remaining. --B.navez (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question So, is there anything we're still waiting for? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept in this edit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Salvador_Dali_A_(Dali_Atomicus)_09633u.jpg&oldid=831594337"