Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs in The South Pole

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 in The South Pole|year=2024|month=November|day=22}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Photographs in The South Pole|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs in The South Pole}} at the end of today's log.

Photographs in The South Pole

[edit]

Published in Sydpolen (V x refers to The South Pole)

Reproduced by Amundsen Murray with permission from external parties

Timeline

  • 18 May 1912: Illustrated London News published a "Special South Pole Number" (number 3813, vol. 140 pages 745-792) with photographs of "the end of the last Great Quest".[3]
  • May to September 1912: Amundsen published his expedition's account over 40 periodicals (roughly 2 per week), titled Sydpolen, in Norway.[4]
  • Post September 1912: Jacob Dybwads published compilations of those periodicals in 2 volumes of Sydpolen.[5][6] A Danish version was simultaneously published by Gyldendalske Bogh.[7]
  • 24 November 1912: John Murray published the English version of Sydpolen.[page 6 of The Observer (24 November 1912)]
  1. The two volumes of The South Pole are first published in London; the country of origin is the United Kingdom, not United States of America they are, however, translations of Amundsen's Sydpolen, which is first published in Norway.
  2. The photographs in the two books are not taken by Roald Amundsen alone. They are also taken by members of his expedition. Several of them died less than 70 years ago, e.g. Bjaaland lived until 1961 and Hansen until 1956. Per {{PD-UK-unknown}}, there is an onus to prove that the photographer cannot be identified. Reasonable research must be done and internet speculation does not cut it (one must have ensured that Amundsen's records, not just the book, did not list the photographer, and that none of the expedition's family members can recall who took the picture). Some photographs are acknowledged as taken from other sources, which needs further investigation.
  3. Thanks to Yomangani (see below), we now know that the photographs not credited to any other parties were likely first published in Sydpolen, a Norwegian periodical collectible. That brings in Norwegian copyright laws to be examined.

As such, unless the photographer can be ascertained, these images should be deleted from Commons. There is no problem with storing them on Wikipedia (which considers only US side copyright). Jappalang (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably keep most of them if we can find exact publication date for Amundsen's book; it was published as The South Pole by John Murray in the UK in 1912 but it was originally published as Sydpolen by Jacob Dybwads forlag in Kristiania (now Oslo) earlier in 1912. UK Copyright law will give the the origin country's copyright term when the creator is not British and the work was not originally published in the UK. Norwegian law gives a copyright term of 50 years after creation or 15 years after the death of the creator, whichever is longer. A citation for the earlier publication may be hard to find as publication dates for books tend to give the year only. However, assuming we can come up with something, the longest surviving member of the expedition died in 1980 which would mean copyright expired in 1995 at the latest. Any of the photos marked as "Courtesy of the London Illustrated News" wouldn't fall under this blanket as they presumably were published soon after or during the expedition in the UK. Those would be File:Polar Transport.jpg, File:Pole-observation.jpg and File:Framheim, Amundsen's camp in the Bay of Whales, Antarctica. Illustrated London News, April 1912.jpg. I also can't find File:Amundsen1.jpg and File:Amundsen4.jpg in the book yet as the titles are in German and not a translation of the originals. Yomangani (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    According to a review on page 6 of The Observer on 24 November 1912, Murray's translation was published that day and according to this site [8] Sydpolen was published in serial from May to September, so it looks fairly safe to keep all but the three labelled "Courtesy of the London Illustrated News". Yomangani (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good find. According to Commons:Licensing#Norway, "Works are protected 70 years after author's death, or 70 years after publication if the author is unknown/anonymous. There is one exception: Photos that are not considered artistic works (i.e. snapshots) are protected until no less than 15 years after the photographer's death and no less than 50 years after publication." This "not considered artistic works" is quite contentious. Is it agreed that the expedition members took the photographs without any aesthetic purpose? Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Olav Bjaaland died in 1961; hence, his copyright for non-artistic works would last to the end of this year (well... just 2 months left...). Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wilse died in 1949, but I think that publicity photograph of Amundsen definitely was taken with artistic intent and not as a simple snapshot (hence, 70 years pma => copyrighted in Norway till 2020). Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if deletion is decided upon, recommend moving image to en Wikipedia with the license {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Kelly (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep {{PD-Norway50}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please clarify which photographs qualify under PD-Norway50, or are you saying all, even those whose authors have not been dead more than 50 years ago? Jappalang (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    15 years dead, that is what the template says. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I misread it. Still, I would argue Wilse's publicity shot of Amundsen, File:Amundsen-in-ice.jpg, is a work of art, not a "snapshot". Furthermore, what is your opinion on those images first published in the ILN? Jappalang (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Norwegian threshold for photos is high. An account (in Swedish) of the Norwegian position can be read here. The Norwegian committee said "profesjonel dyktighet er ikke nok." Only few (artsy) photos would be regarded works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That pretty much negates the argument for the shot of Amundsen being an artistic work under the Norwegian copyright rules, so it can be treated the same as the other photos here. Yomangani (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We might agree on the Norwegian position for works of art (I still wonder what is "profesjonel dyktighet er ikke nok", Google cannot translate this, and I fail to find this phrase anywhere except Wikimedia pages), but what about those images that were first published in the ILN. They are not Norwegian publications. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase means that professional skill is not enough (in order to qualify as an artistic work). And I would assume that all those photos had been published in Norway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Berne's convention declares the country of origin to be the first country in which the image was published. If the the images concerned were first published in Norway, then they would not be "reproduced by permission" in Murray's translation (note also the publication dates of ILN and Sydpolen). Jappalang (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary At this point from the evidence provided that the images would be seem to fall into the public domain, ie. keep. I would listen to arguments that a specific image … image A or B or … should be considered as an artistic image (provide your reason for consideration) before closing the discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern left is those photographs first published in ILN; these are not Norweigian publications but United Kingdom's. By what basis would those three listed above be PD in the United Kingdom? Jappalang (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that those initially published in the ILN are not yet PD. They were almost certainly published in the UK before they were published in Norway as Amundsen had an exclusive deal with the ILN for the story of the expedition. Yomangani (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept most of them and deleted the three originally from the ILN, per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Photographs_in_The_South_Pole&oldid=342244159"