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.

Files in Category:1924 paintings

These paintings were first published after 1922. This means that they are protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. All Commons files have to be free in the United States, as explained at COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law.

Stefan4 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder are all clear deletes. I removed the Leo Gestel works because they are already involved in the earlier Commons:Deletion requests/Post-1923 works by Leo Gestel (I accidentally forgot to tag them, oops). I'm tagging all the artists with {{URAA artist}} and, where appropriate, {{France wartime extensions URAA}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Italian paintings are only OK if the painter died before 1940, due to wartime copyright extensions. Giuseppe Amisani died in 1941, which is too late. However, I missed that the paintings might count as Egyptian works. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realise Italy had wartime extensions too (6 years for works still in copyright in 1945). I don't know for sure that the paintings were first published in Egypt, but I do know he was living there from 1924 to 1926 and the first painting depicts Egyptian royalty. It might be worthwhile to renominate them separately to consider these issues. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, France, Italy, Russia and Japan all had wartime copyright extensions on the URAA date. The Japanese extensions are irrelevant for Commons (they only affect works for which the source country is not Japan) and the Russian extensions only affect works of artists who were involved in WWII in some way (and all relevant Russian works are still copyrighted in Russia anyway), but the French and Italian extensions are relevant for all works. Yes, a separate nomination for works by Giuseppe Amisani may be a better idea. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Check US Copyright Office, Circular 38b, "Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA" : "To be eligible [to copyright restauration], a work must meet all of the following requirements.", among which : "The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection." These works are in the public domain in their eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection (death of author + 70 years). They're PD everywhere, including in the USA. Esprit Fugace (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misreading this document. These are the qualifications that a work must satisfy on the URAA restoration date in order to be protected under the URAA. All these works were copyrighted in their source countries on their respective URAA restoration dates, usually Jan 1, 1996. The United States does not observe the rule of the shorter term. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Position of the WMF: "To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain." And then: "This is a rare exception to the usual Commons rule that all images must be free both in the US and in the source country." Binabik (d) 12:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has nothing to do with the photographic copyright. The problem is that the paintings themselves are not in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is just no problem according to the WMF's policy. Binabik (d) 19:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're confused. If the original painting were in the public domain in the United States, the photographic reproduction would be as well, but it is not, so the photo is an unlicensed derivative work and cannot be hosted. The PD-Art exception applies solely to images of works that are in the public domain in both the source country and the United States (regardless of whether the photograph is in the public domain in both nations). Dcoetzee (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep agree with Binabik and Esprit Fugace --Kormin (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The mass deletion request is not the solution : for some countries, including France, the delay before a work enter the public domain was 50 of 50 years after the death of the author in 1996 (ie, on URAA date). Thus, as stated on Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Works_first_published_outside_the_United_States_that_were_in_the_public_domain_on_the_URAA_date, they should be kept. It is the case for File:Suzanne Valadon-La Femme aux bas blancs-Musée des beaux-arts de Nancy.jpg which was in the public domain since 1989. Léna (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copyright term in France on 1 January 1996 was 58 years and 120 days after the death of the author (or 88 years and 120 days if the author died whilst serving the French armed forces). See COM:CRT#Wartime copyright extensions. Suzanne Valadon died in 1938, and with a copyright term of 58 years and 120 days, this means that her paintings were due to enter the public domain in France during spring 1998, which is too late. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the wartime extension was created in 1992, in a time when Suzanne Valadon's work was already in the public domain for 3 years. And thanks in France public domain restriction are not retroactive. Léna (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The law is from 1951 so you're right. Fucking stupid URAA law, fucking stupid Wartime copyright extensions, fucking stupid very long delay until an artwork is in the public domain, fucking stupid international cooperation that can creates dumb things like ACTA but not answer clearly to the simple question "which law should apply to an atwork online". Léna (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ils font dans les lois rétroactives aux US ? Article 1 de la déclaration des droits de l'homme, raf ? Et ils l'appliquent de pleine autorité au reste du monde ? Bon rapatriez les fichiers sur les serveurs francophones quand même, avant de rapatrier les serveurs eux-mêmes Vatekor (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Tu veux sans doute parler de la rétroactivité de la Convention de Berne ? Celle que les USA ont, incidemment, voulu ignorer justement ? − cf. en:Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act#Copyright_restorations. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the URAA's placement of these works back under copyright. This isn't technically a retroactive law since it only imposes penalties for ongoing use of the works after the URAA was passed, although it is certainly chilling since it means no derivative work based on public domain works is safe from being rendered useless by a change in the law. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Commons:Hirtle_chart. Iluvalar (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please elaborate? Jean-Fred (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Let's play a game instead ! Find a reliable secondary source that I can access for the second chapter here. And if you do so, I'll flip my vote to deletion. Iluvalar (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How's this for a start? "The United States has never adopted the rule of the shorter term, and there are many examples of works that remain protected here after falling into the public domain in most of the rest of the world." (Dennis S. Karjala, Professor of Law, Arizona State University, excerpt from Growing Pains: Adapting Copyright for Education and Society, ISBN 0837706548, Chapter 3). This does not discuss interaction with the URAA in particular, but it is clear that works that are PD in their source country don't magically become PD in the US. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Shivaji-Dhurandhar.jpg (died in 1944, India) Falls under "Exception: Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, such as paintings, which are in the public domain are an exception to this rule." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The painter died after 1940, so the painting is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication of the painting. The painting is not yet 95 years old. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Tuke The Bather (1924).jpg (†1929, England) Tuke died over 70 years ago. According to UK copyright law a work is copyright until "70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies. " UK Copyright Law" UK Copyright Law fact sheet from UK Copyright Service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 2013-01-06T01:00:28 (UTC)
    • However, files on Commons also have to follow US law, which says that the painting enters the public domain 95 years after it was first published. Thus, the image can't be hosted here. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is, that you don't define hosting. Storage is allowed, publishing isn't unless we publish it in a country where the image is in the PD, which is almost every country except the US. So, our aim should not be deleting the image, but preventing it from being published in the US. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does "publishing in the US" mean? Hosting it on a US server and letting people outside the US access it (while blocking US IP addresses)? Or hosting it on a server outside the US (and distributing the file to US IP addresses)? --Stefan4 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You still don't define hosting. To rephrase your answer: "Storing it on a US server and letting people outside the US access it." This happens all the time. If I make a website at any provider's facility, the actual disc might be in Iceland, the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, Norway, wherever. The concept is called server farm. I don't know where the data is stored, I don't know what copyright law applies there, and I don't mind. I only have to take care of the copyright laws in the country where I publish my website. So, if I want to use this image on the nl.wikipedia.org I should be allowed to, because it is a Dutch painter, and Dutch copyright-law allows it. The only problem is, that we will have to make an access scheme that disallows it's use in the US. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jurisdiction is not such a simple matter on the Internet. It's not clear to me, based on available case law, that excluding US readers based on IP from seeing the images would mean that US law no longer applies - the project is still maintained by a US organization with assets in the US, which someone could at least attempt to sue in the US. Moreover, the Foundation has clearly stated that no WMF project is allowed to host content that is copyrighted in the US, except under a local Exemption Doctrine Policy consistent with US fair use law. This is not negotiable unless you contact the WMF directly and they explicitly allow you to do so. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Jurisdiction seems simple enough to allow the en.wikipedia.org to display images under copyright as fair use, without allowing the rest of the world to use those images. When I ask you the same prerogative, which is actually more straightforward, that is to show actual PD images on our local wikipedias, jurisdiction suddenly is to complicated. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Furthermore, you (or Stefan4) request a deletion here, so anyone can have his say about it, and when it comes to the point you tell me, you can say whatever you like but we are going ahead, anyway. It is time that the more equal ones step out of their ivory tower. Before we had Commons, we were all uploading images under our own jurisdiction on our local wikipedia's. I don't remember that storage was an legal issue than. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Dutch Wikipedia is free to implement an Exemption Doctrine Policy that allows usage of images consistent with US fair use law, just like English Wikipedia - not having one was their decision, not ours. Many other projects have EDPs almost identical to English Wikipedia's (see meta:Non-free_content) including the Arabic, Bengali, Armenian, Luxembourgish, Malayalam, Slovenian, Thai, Ukrainian, Vietnamese and Chinese Wikipedias. If you wish to retain some version of these images there, you should talk to the community about implementing one - according to meta:Resolution:Licensing policy, para 6, "The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it." If and when nl implements an EDP, I'll be happy to assist in transferring files there. The fact that local projects got away with hosting works that are not PD in the US in the early days is only a sign of the community's inexperience and lack of meaningful legal oversight at that time. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and think about moving to canada. see: Wikilivres:Inclusion policy Gruß Tom (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although Canada's terms are comparatively short, if WMF moved there we would no longer be able to host many PD-US-1923-abroad works on English Wikipedia and English Wikisource, nor host photos of buildings completed before 1987, among other things. Moreover the WMF is unlikely to move because of the expense and the fact that their employees are mostly US citizens. However, we can reupload all of these images to Wikilivres after deletion since the authors died before 1962. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wouldn't only be an issue of PD-US-1923-abroad works on English Wikipedia and English Wikisource (a significant number of those works are PD-old-50 anyway), but more an issue of PD-US-no notice works and PD-US-not renewed works, since Canada applies a copyright term of 50 years p.m.a. on those works. On the other hand, it would only prevent us from using PD works from one country, which would mean a significant reduction compared to the present situation. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: @Bibniak -- the WMF 2D art policy applies to any photographs of 2D art that is PD. In this case, the issue is not the phtographs, but that the art itself is not PD. @Stefan -- I suggest that when you're doing broad mass deletes, that you limit them to one country -- it makes discussion easier. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't afford this haughty attitude. I seriously consider to abstain from my next donation, I am sorry. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Restored 1/1/2020. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]