Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures of Chang Liyi
|
Pictures of Chang Liyi
[edit]
The source citing the photo says the photos could be made before 1965. The photos may have been out of copyright in their state, the Republic of China (Taiwan). However, per COM:copyright rules, a work must be in the public domain in both the source country and the US. In other words, the US law also applies.
The works from ROC are copyrighted for fifty years after creation (or first publication). If the photos were made in the 1960s, then they must have been still copyrighted in ROC (Taiwan) on January 1, 2002, the date when URAA restored copyright for works first published in ROC regions. If the photos were published on or before 1951, then URAA wouldn't have applied to the photos of Chang Liyi above.
Without adequate proof that the photos were made in 1951 or prior, and without enough proof of first publication, let's assume that the photos were first publicly released in 2017, the year of the cited source. I.e. assume the photos to be unpublished until 2017, and assume that the photos are anonymous works. Per Cornell chart or this one, the photos are still copyrighted for either "120 years after creation" or "95 years after first publication", whichever would come first.
Therefore, the photos should be deleted and then, without proof that they were first published on or before 1990, un-deleted in possibly 2086, one hundred twenty years after creation per US law. --George Ho (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep The photos were undoubtedly taken before 1965, as Chang Liyi was captured by China in January 1965 and not released until 1982, so they are 50+ years old and in public domain per PD-China (which also covers Taiwan). The rest of the nominator's argument is entirely based on URAA, as US copyright law cannot otherwise be applied to foreign works. However, the consensus at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA is that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion". -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- The photos were probably taken in Taiwan, whose state is a de facto government. We can't be sure that they were made in mainland China, whose government is PROC. George Ho (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- They were certainly taken in Taiwan (which is where Chang Liyi got married and had kids). But that's irrelevant, as copyright duration for photos is the same (50 years) in Taiwan and China. -Zanhe (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- The US law also applies; the URAA took effect on PROC works on January 1, 1996 and then ROC works on January 1, 2002. We can't disregard the US law and solely focus on a non-US country's jurisdiction, can we? If that doesn't convince you, how about other examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord Runciman.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HKHM 沙田 Shatin 香港文化博物館 HK Heritage Museum 金庸展廳館 Jin Yong Gallery March 2017 IX1 movie 曹達華 Cho Tat Wah poster.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Princess Elizabeth wedding 1947.jpg? George Ho (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW, if first published in 1982 and still the work of anonymous, then the family photo can be undeleted in 2078, ninety-five years after (supposed) first publication, whether in the US or elsewhere. In Taiwan (or China), per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan, the photo of the family is still copyrighted until 2033 per that assumption, but that doesn't make the photo eligible for Commons unless also PD in the US, which is highly unlikely. George Ho (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Realized that I misread "1982", the year Chang Liyi was released, not the photos themselves. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)- Many editors are unaware of the community decision about URAA, and I see that in the examples you used nobody brought up that decision. But many admins are aware of it, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guo Chaoren.jpg. Please read Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA as well as the letter by Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees regarding URAA, which says "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices.". -Zanhe (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- That discussion concerned mostly mass deletions and mass restorations, and citing that discussion can be very subjective. This nomination is discussing just two photos of the same subject instead of mass nomination. Applying the 2014 discussion to this case wouldn't be sufficient to keep the images. Also, WMF's statement discourages mass deletion, not individual cases. BTW, the URAA has been revisited this year at COM:VPCOPY; are you aware of it?
Also, after reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan, we can't be certain whether the photos are already in the PD in the source country since 2016. Taiwanese public release is unknown; we can assume that they're published in 2015 or 2014, so Taiwan copyright would expire in 2064 or 2065. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that discussion was about mass deletions, but the principle is the same, and the WMF statement is unambiguous: "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice." If you look at recent cases such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hugo Erfurth, the closing admin states that "In line with the WMF point of view, the vast majority of admins does not delete files for this reason." -Zanhe (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- We're not part of WMF, which lets the whole community decide what to do with URAA-affected works. It can or cannot recommend what the community should or shouldn't do. If you feel strongly about other files, please go to COM:UDR then. George Ho (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I noticed that you didn't yet respond to my interpretation about Taiwan law. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that discussion was about mass deletions, but the principle is the same, and the WMF statement is unambiguous: "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice." If you look at recent cases such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hugo Erfurth, the closing admin states that "In line with the WMF point of view, the vast majority of admins does not delete files for this reason." -Zanhe (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- That discussion concerned mostly mass deletions and mass restorations, and citing that discussion can be very subjective. This nomination is discussing just two photos of the same subject instead of mass nomination. Applying the 2014 discussion to this case wouldn't be sufficient to keep the images. Also, WMF's statement discourages mass deletion, not individual cases. BTW, the URAA has been revisited this year at COM:VPCOPY; are you aware of it?
- Many editors are unaware of the community decision about URAA, and I see that in the examples you used nobody brought up that decision. But many admins are aware of it, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guo Chaoren.jpg. Please read Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA as well as the letter by Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees regarding URAA, which says "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices.". -Zanhe (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- They were certainly taken in Taiwan (which is where Chang Liyi got married and had kids). But that's irrelevant, as copyright duration for photos is the same (50 years) in Taiwan and China. -Zanhe (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- The photos were probably taken in Taiwan, whose state is a de facto government. We can't be sure that they were made in mainland China, whose government is PROC. George Ho (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Kept: After nearly half year I am closing this as kept. If someone has something else to say, it could be renominated but keep it active. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)