Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Photographs by Lewis Carroll|year=2024|month=December|day=30}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Photographs by Lewis Carroll|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll}} at the end of today's log.

Photographs by Lewis Carroll

[edit]
For perusal of works first published in the US

Dodgson died in 1898 and his photographs are in UK public domain at the start of 1969; however, many of his photographs had never been published. The Dodgson estate took advantage of the 1976 US Copyright Act to publish and copyright those unpublished photographs in the US in 2002, thereby copyrighting those photographs in the US until 31 December 2047.(Bielstein 2006, pp. 22–23) The US is considered the country of origin since the Berne convention deems the country of origin to be the place where the work is first published.

Reference: Bielstein, Susan M. (2006) Permissions, a survival guide: blunt talk about art as intellectual property, Illinois, United States: University of Chicago Press Retrieved on 16 December 2010. ISBN: 0-226-04638-9.

Any photograph without a source that indicates an authorised publication earlier than Lewis Carroll, photographer and Dreaming in Pictures: The Photography of Lewis Caroll should be deleted. --Jappalang (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment the files need to be tagged with a deletion notice; it's not okay to just add this to Deletion requests without making a note anywhere in mainspace.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep What a innovative fads? Lewis Carroll died in 1898 . So, copyrights stopped obligatory in 1968. If some country foresees the end of copyrights 100 years after the death of the author. Even then everything′s all right in the matter of notified works. --Starscream (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the laws, especially the publication (Bielstein) noted above. Berne convention states the country of origin as the place where the works are first published. US common law recognizes perpetual copyright for unpublished works, acceding to state law, until 1989 when the common law was changed to fall in line with the rest of the world; however, they granted extended copyrights to unpublished works that are published from 1989 to 2002. Note particularly on http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, "Date of Publication: 1978 to 1 March 1989/From 1 March 1989 through 2002", "Conditions: Created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period/Created before 1978 and first published in this period", "Copyright Term: The greater of [70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation,] or 31 December 2047." Simplified chart on right. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to the very strange assemblage of rubbish. 70 years after death of author is 70 years after death of author. That's All Folks. Most simple solutions are best. This big strange is delete of milions works on servers. --Starscream (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The nominator makes a compelling legal argument, although I find the idea that these 19th century photographs - by a person who never set foot in the US - could possibly be copyrighted today in the US to be disturbing. Some of these were probably first published in the UK at some earlier time, but we'd need evidence to back that up. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Many of the pictures had at least been published by Helmut Gernsheim in London in 1949, and thus are free of copyright at least in Europe. - Andre Engels (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep "many of his photographs had never been published" is an unverifiably broad statement. As Andre Engels wrote above, many have indeed been published; see also this page at the University of Virginia, which shows many photographs proposed for deletion above, and refers to Gernsheim and another publication from 1984. It defies common sense that photographs taken in the 19th century in England should be covered by a copyright in the US starting in 2002. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source Michael, but contrary to what you said, it does not show "many photographs proposed for deletion above". If you can locate sources that show a photograph listed above as published in Gernsheim or Ovenden, that would help (and it would be appreciated if you fill in the sources for those photographs). Legal offenses do not need to make sense (why else would there be so many lawyers...); regardless, none of this would have happened if the images were provided with the necessary details to verify copyrights. A deletion request is to help discuss the status of images and in these mass cases, sort out which fall short of the standards required for this project (those that are verified to be in the public domain in both countries are removed from the list as above). The policy of precautionary principle (Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle)stands: if no information qualifies what is claimed for the image that is brought to contention with evidence, it should be considered for deletion. Jappalang (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It seems a strange argument that British artist whose works have been available to public for over 100 years and which were PD in GB (and US) since 1969, would suddenly become copyrighted in US after publication in US. The photographs seemed to have been available to public at various museums and libraries and in various publications: like "Lewis Carroll, Photographer by Helmut Gernsheim. London: 1949", "PEOPLE PHOTOGRAPHED BY C. L. DODGSON: A LIST OF PORTRAITS by EDWARD WAKELING (2000)" and possibly many others. Many minor works of prolific artists were never published, so a first publication in US of some obscure (or newly rediscovered) Leonardo da Vinci drawing does not make it suddenly copyrighted. The same should apply to Lewis Carroll. So the works are PD in US based on {{PD-URAA}} which says that "it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date ( January 1, 1996 for most countries)." --Jarekt (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • PD-URAA isn't the law; the law says that works unpublished in 1978, by authors who died prior to 1978, if published prior to 2003, got a copyright until 2047. Yes, any works of da Vinci first legally published between 1923 and 2002 in the US that followed the necessary laws at the time (registration & renewal when appropriate), and done with the permission of the holders of the copyright in da Vinci's works is still under copyright. Given that the part in italics has never been done to the best of my knowledge, it's a moot point.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment United Kingdom was a Homeland of Lewis Carrol. And, surely, the place, wherein he created these beautiful photos. So, even if, some unknown hitherto the legal loop-hole was discovered in law of the Uncle Sam, is should to acknowledge the superiority of the law of the United Kingdom, when is the discrepancy between laws of these states. The law of the United Kingdom and the all the rest of the European Union speaks very lucidly: 70 years after death of the author. --Starscream (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The law is the law. The willingness of some here to ignore goes completely against Commons principles; we don't host copyright infringements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment. Yes, las is the law. But law of the United Kingdom is in this matter most important. The law of the Uncle Sam unimportant, because Lewis Carrol was a citizen of the United Kingdom where created these the photos. Uncle Sam must respects the law of the United Kingdom. --Starscream (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • US must respect the law of the UK? I seem to remember a war over that, a war that the US won. Furthermore, the Berne Convention, which the UK was one of the original authors and signers of, stipulates that "(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection". So the citizenship of Lewis Carroll is irrelevant to the country of origin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • United Kingdom, as yet, is not a state of USA. These works are subject to the law of the United Kingdom. And if I make a mistake, you must liquidation many accepted on Commons of the licence and delete millions of other files which are based on other law than Uncle Sam. A rule of Commons is: Licences accepted as free licences in countries of the European Union are accepted in the all project. --Starscream (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • "These works are subject to the law of the United Kingdom." I guess if you repeat that enough, it will be true? Despite any evidence to the contrary? Despite the fact that the UK is Berne-convention signatory, which says otherwise? I don't know where you get that rule of Commons from, but it's not true, and it's mindbogglingly offensive; nothing gives the EU the right to rule over anything outside the EU.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What Commons actually says is "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." (Cite: COM:L#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law).--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You do not understand the idea of the precedent? Now you must the liquidation all files having agreeable licences with the law of the European Union, but contrary to the law if USA. As yet, the agreeable with legality of the European Union was sufficient for managers of Wikimedia to acceptive. USA as yet is not an all the world. --Starscream (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those who vote on DRs cannot override policy; if they wish to change policy, they need to move to do so openly. In any case, there is no precedent that says that American works need to be judged by EU standards, and by the Berne Convention, this is an American work. If you want to call upon precedent, I suggest make it clear what precedent you're calling on by citing it, as I have done.
              • Not only the US, but China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Iran have said they don't want to be judged by the EU, and if that doesn't amount to all the world, that amounts to most of it.(Cite: w:List of countries by population)--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With references:
    What is your legal basis for claiming that the country of origin is not the place of first publication? The laws of both US and UK define publication to be the distribution of several copies of the work to the public (via sales or gifts), the term has nothing to do with creation. Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William Jacobson

File:William Jacobson.jpg is included in this deletion request. The page description includes a search link to the National Portrait Gallery here which has the text "Purchased with help from Kodak Ltd, 1973 NPG P7(1)". Would that be sufficient evidence of publication before 2002? -84user (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It depends on from whom the photograph was obtained. To qualify as publication, the buyer (or the image's previous owners) must have obtained the work from Charles Dodgson or his estate. If it was from someone who might have found the image in the rubbish or while hunting through former haunts of Dodgson, it would not qualify. Jappalang (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see this might be a weak argument but if the NPG bought the image in 1973 could we assume (yes I know...) that the NPG would have then exhibited the image, and would that exhibit be counted as a publication? Ie. did the 1976 US Copyright Act operate retrospectively? This further convinces me we need to rely on proper legal advice, hence my addition of Ask the Foundation below. -84user (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the Foundation

I suggest someone asks the wikimedia foundation legal adviser to comment on this matter as it depends on interpretations of international law. Meanwhile I looked through the National Portrait Gallery's list of Dodgson photographs to add their notes on images we have in Commons, but I am stopping just after "Edith Mary Liddell" at page 5 of 7 here: where http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait-list.php?search=sp&sText=Lewis+Carroll&page=5 . -84user (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Berne Convention is clear, the relevant law is USA because that is the place of first publication. The USA law, strange as it may be, is also clear. Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transfer notes: These works cannot be transferred to Wikilivres, because in Canada posthumously published works are copyrighted 50 years from publication, or until 2052 here. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Photographs_by_Lewis_Carroll&oldid=851740265"