Hosta

No proof Flickr uploader owns the rights to this 1933 photo or why it should be PD (if published in the United States it would qualify for PD-US-no notice). Note uploader attempted to "fix" the image description first as an IP, was reverted, then did so as the logged in user, forging my flickr review in the process. -Nard the Bard 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Billinghurst on File talk:Olivia De Haviland 1933.jpg; please remove the speedy tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "no notice found in Rutgers or Stanford's listings" - a bit more detail would really be helpful. The flickr source gives no information on when/where this was actually published, or under what title or author's name, so how does one search for the renewal notice? Also note that the Rutgers and Stanford databases say that they only contain listings for books. --dave pape (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more detail would be nice. Looking at similar images historically, the time period would be about right. My statement is balance of probability.

•  DeleteThe uploader at Flickr complained about this copy: Update, update! Noticed some traffice from Wikipedia and saw this. I never gave permission for someone to upload this scan for use in the commons. I don't know if he is in the position to complain, but uploader Flavius92 has a history of violations, so it is best to delete this suspect file. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the basic scenario is still "is the work under copyright?" If yes, and no permissions have been sought, then both the uploader at flickr and then to commons are in breach. If no, then neither is in breach of copyright. A person who scans a photograph from a work and adds no artistic merit has no copyright protection for their effort, and they can certainly complain about lack of courtesy about someone just copying it, just not legitimately about copyright. That someone does or does not have a history has to be set aside, as even they can get it right now and again. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep as per my statements on the talk page — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to copy your statements over here. [done above by transclusion] — Preceding unsigned comment added by billinghurst (talk • contribs) Removed, it cluttered up the page -Nard the Bard 00:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say it was published. How can you tell? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed that it is a theatre pamphlet, and that being the case if it is sold or given to the public would be considered published. The signature on the cover, and the descriptive text indicates that is the nature of the publication. No definitive proof. There is no provenence for the photograph, and in lieu of that one can only research [1] and draw conclusions. I invite the introduction of any primary evidence. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not say it is a theatre pamphlet. The copyright status is unclear, but we do know the uploader at Flickr objects to the use of this file over here. Unless we find evidence that this image is PD, we should delete it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of the Flickr user is irrelevant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm the user AliceJapan from Flickr. I can't help but to add my two cents to this discussion. When I had originally noticed my scan on wikimedia, I had noticed that the user who uploaded the file said they had procured the file through Flickr's Commons which was false. Second, the user did not even notify me that they were going to use said file for use in the Wikimedia commons. True, that my opinion is irrelevant to the discussion of PD or not, I would just like to believe that the commons here has some sort of standards when it comes to acquiring photos for use in expanding Wikipedia entries for the good of the online community. As in, notifying the person who has gone through the trouble of acquiring a piece of Hollywood memorabilia and bringing it into the public domain. I mean, that's my mission on Flickr. Presenting portraits and stills of films from Hollywood's golden age.

The user could have just asked me for a HQ version for use in the commons and I would have gladly re-scanned the photo but he didn't do that. He searched for the file's name using Google and grabbed it from there circumventing Flickr's privacy setting of not letting others right click and save a file if not allowed to. Mostly a deterrent, I know, but it does put me in communication with those who wish to use my scans.

Now, as what you people decide to do is up to whoever is in charge. I would prefer that the file be deleted and re-uploaded by a trusted user who goes through the proper channels instead of a user who is known of smash and grabbing files from the Internet. I did appreciate that the user who uploaded the file had changed the information to credit my account on Flickr and directing traffic towards it. In conclusion, I hope whatever the community here decides to do about the file does what is best for the commons and not about what is PD and what is not. Good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.156.170 (talk • contribs)

It’s all about PD or not PD. --Polarlys (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would appreciate it if you could donate a HQ version. Thanks in advance. The question is though, is this image in the public domain, otherwise we can not publish it here. But yes, it you could take the trouble, a high-res version is gladly appreciated. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Flickr user did not respond we must assume that he is not the copyright owner. So we have a picture that is not in the PD per se, uploaded by someone who has a record of violations. Summing things up, it is not clear that this image is in the public domain. Only when proven it could remain on commons, so delete it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, 1933 signed photograph (and thus published) without a notice: {{PD-US-no notice}}. Kameraad Pjotr 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]