User talk:Clindberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Tennessee

Welcome to the Commons, Clindberg!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Albert Einstein declares his opposition to the atomic bomb.jpg

Hi, What do you think about the possibility to restoring this file, i.e. to find a lack of copyright renewal? This is the image. Yann (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. At the time of the DR, there was no online way to check for renewals. There now is. The question is what to search for -- what could that have been published in, or who would the copyright owners be, and could that have been renewed. It's a provenance question now. The fact there are many sources does tend strongly towards all those sources collecting PD copies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this query -- the image was one of two from this session distributed via AP Wirephoto in February 1950. It was published without a copyright notice. I've uploaded a newspaper copy here as PD-US-no notice. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nude Descending a Staircase.jpg

Hi, I still confuse about what constitutes publication. This is undoubtedly a US work, as it was first exhibited in USA in 1913 at the Armory Show in New York. Isn't this sufficient for publication? Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Publication wasn't defined in the law, so courts had to make the determinations, and not surprisingly different judicial circuits ended up with different definitions. So it's not just you. Exhibition where the right to reproduce (photograph etc) was prevented was not publication (American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, a 1907 case regarding an exhibition in Europe which happened years before, did not forfeit copyright). The implication was that display where copies could be made was publication, so outdoor permanent display (for statues etc.) has generally been taken as publication. That was part of the ruling in s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. Exhibitions in galleries are less obvious, without knowledge of whether copying was prevented. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. The publication question was more when copies were made and maybe distributed. The catalog does say that many of the paintings at that show were for sale -- that may have also been considered publication, but unsure if this painting was included in that list. If we are talking about Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, it seems it was exhibited in Europe (and perhaps offered for sale there) in 1912 before the Armory show. It sounds like it was published in a 1913 French book for sure, so the U.S. copyright is gone. But somewhat doubtful we can call that first published in the U.S., given pretty equivalent display in Europe before that. If Spain is the country of origin due to that, it won't be PD until 2049. Might be best just to assume France as the country of origin -- the French book may be the first publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Wow! More than one thousand works of art. That was a huge exhibition. I thought that press reporters would be allowed to take pictures in such an exhibition. That would then constitute publication, right? Is it possible to find that in newspapers archives? Yann (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless they were allowed to make copies of the individual paintings, probably not. Being included in the background of a photo probably would not. And even then, the same question would arise for the previous exhibition in Spain. And maybe the artist had offered it for sale in France before that. I don't think there is near enough evidence to call the Armory show the first publication. Particularly by Berne standards, which is what other countries may use, when determining the rule of the shorter term. The U.S. definition probably doesn't matter much, as it was absolutely published before 1929 so is in the public domain there regardless. The question is what all the other rule-of-the-shorter-term countries would consider the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A black and white image of this painting was published in the catalog of the exhibition Paintings from the Arensberg and Gallatin Collections of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, February 1961, without a copyright notice (no page numbers). 5000 copies were printed. So at the very least, a black-and-white version is PD in the US. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and a colour version appears in the catalog of The Cubist Epoch at Los Angeles County Museum of Art and Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1971. The catalog was published by Phaidon. The reverse title page carries the text "All rights reserved", but this does not satisfy US requirements under the 1909 Act, which required the word, abbreviation, or symbol for "copyright", the year, and the claimant. This catalog does not satisfy these formalities, so I think that if US copyright existed up to then, it was probably inadvertently lost at this point. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If the 1913 French book had no copyright notice, US copyright may have been lost then, too. Or 28 years later for no renewal of that book. Worst case it expired in 1989 (75 years from publication), though as you mention it was probably long gone by then for one reason or another (and not restored by the URAA). But, none of the above would make the U.S. the country of origin, which is more the question for Commons at this point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Assistance on English Wikipedia

Hi Clindberg. Would you mind taking a look at en:User talk:Dcw2003#Using the "PD-US-no notice" license over on English Wikipedia? The uploader is looking for a quick way to check whether an old newspaper has a copyright notice, and I can't think of any way other than to look at the newspaper itself. Feel free to also correct anything I might've posted about using a "PD-US-no notice" license or any other copyright related info. FWIW, if the files uploaded are OK as licensed, they should be OK for Commons. The uploader could then upload similar files to Commons from hereon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Clindberg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. It is also useful to me about File:Popular Photography 1939-12, v. 5, issue 6.pdf and catalogs by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Yann (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.

Hi Carl, Could you give your opinion about this in COM:VPC#Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.. Thanks, and Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)