Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1923 paintings

< Commons:Deletion requests
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:1923 paintings

edit

These paintings were still protected by copyright in the source country on the URAA date. For that reason, the images are protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. The death date of the author and nation of first publication for each work are indicated.

Copyrighted in source country (painter died after 1932)
Copyrighted in the source country (painter died after 1942)
Year of death unknown (possibly still protected in the source country, free in USA if the painter died before 1926)
Other images (undelete in 2019)

Stefan4 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if deleted, please consider Category:Undelete in 2019 --Mattes (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain for those who are not that deep in your URAA - for me it is not understandable why those pictures from artists died more than 70 years ago and where the copyright is gone in their homeland / source country like Germany, should be deleted on commons. For example Lovis Corinth died 1925, two years after he painted the listed paintings. The dutch painter Theo van Doesburg died 1931 and you can go all through the list to see that the painters mainly from Germany died more than 70 years ago and their works are free from copyright. For me I don't see any reason for deletion -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that the paintings have to be in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country. In the United States, the paintings are protected by copyright for 95 years since publication unless they were already in the public domain in the source country on a specific date (usually 1 January 1996).
The paintings by Theo van Doesburg entered the public domain in the Netherlands on 1 January 2002. Since they were protected by copyright in the Netherlands on 1 January 1996, they are protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. Paintings published before 1922 are in the public domain in the United States, though.
The inclusion of paintings by Lovis Corinth was a mistake. I skipped a lot of paintings by him, but it seems that some slipped through anyway. Those paintings are in the public domain in the United States per {{PD-1996}} (assuming that they were published before 1 March 1989). --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This policy was crap from the very beginning, but no one wanted to listen to any sensible European arguments. What we need is:
  1. a tag that, while all over the world these paintings are free, they may not be in the US for some years and
  2. a policy that lets us only delete these images as soon as Wikimedia is legally bound to (i. e. after a takedown notice)

Has nobody noticed the fact that none of these images (and the thousands and thousands more with this problem) has ever proven to be any problem? That there has obviously never been a takedown notice or anything like that? That the heirs (if they indeed know to ever having owned any copyrights at all) have long given up cashing in for the works since they are free in the country of origin? Why Wikimedia choses to be paranoid instead of going forward, I will never understand. German donators have just spent 5.2 Million Euros for Wikimedia, so let's set a couple of hundred Euros aside for the unlikely case that they'll be neede for copyright compensation of those files. Another thing no one at Wikimedia seems to understand is that the world does not turn around some US servers, and that they should start to think about really going global, not only using a globe as a logo. That means: set up Commons repositories on a European server and under European government. Lastly, deletion of all files of this sort from 1923–1942 means that you slap _good_ Wikipedia authors from all over the world in the face if they are not able to depict images for pretty much most of 20th century art, even if it would easily and perfectly be possible. --FA2010 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your numbered points:

  1. This tag already exists: {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Files with this tag are constantly being deleted. Also, the files are not necessarily free everywhere else in the world. For example, Colombia protects the paintings in this request for 80 years since the death of the painter, whereas most other countries only protect them for at most 70 years since the death of the painter.
  2. If you want to create a policy like that, then you need to change wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy first.

Also, about takedown requests, see wmf:DMCA Oldenburg. It's not about old stuff, but about a different thing and involves images which are free in the source country but claimed not to be free in the United States. In many European countries, you may take photos of statues in public parks and other places, whereas in the United States you may not. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what FA2010 said: We could keep our images as long as nobody sends a DMCA takedown-notice. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per FA2010 in general. At least keep all PD works from European artists. A DMCA is very very very very unlikely in this case. Raymond 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a precautionary note regarding Paul Klee: Please see the description at Category:Paul Klee with an explanation of the complicated copyright status of this painter's work. Basically, in addition to Klee works published prior to 1923, those published 1933 or later should also be in the public domain in the U.S. as these are Swiss works and were not copyrighted at the URAA date in Switzerland (because Switzerland had a copyright term of 50 years p.m.a. until 1993, and the extension to 70 years p.m.a. made in 1993 did not restore already expired copyrights). But Klee works from 1923 to 1933 are probably German works and likely still protected in the U.S., as they were copyrighted at the URAA date in Germany. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had to read his Wikipedia article very carefully before nominating those files for deletion so that I could find out when he moved to Switzerland. All paintings in this nomination were made in 1923, so the source country is presumably Germany. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear words: a deletion of these file could be the end of Wikimedia Commons in this way. I don't think, the de:WP-Community will stand this not much more longer. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when making URAA mass deletion requests with many artists, please include the death date of each and the nation where each work was first published (as I've now annotated them) so that the request can be assessed by others. Otherwise it is very difficult and time-consuming to do so (I prefer to nom by artist to avoid this issue). Please also tag all affected artist categories with the new tag {{URAA artist}} if they're affected by the URAA, or {{NoUploads}} if they're still copyrighted in their source country (I have done so for the above artists). This will help us discourage copyrighted uploads and find additional works requiring deletion in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the list carefully before nominating the files for deletion, but apparently missed a few Russian/Polish/Hungarian paintings which should never have been nominated. I've removed those from the list altogether. When including French paintings, I checked that death was before 1937, which is what the wartime extension requires for a 1923 work. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now,  Delete all. Thanks also for confirming my date estimate for the {{France wartime extensions URAA}} template. I understand that you did review the works carefully, but it is still necessary for others to review your work in order to make an informed decision, so please provide the necessary info in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This query is illiterate and inattentive. He caught two of the downloaded file by me, and in both countries the death of the author of the completely wrong. At a minimum, I suggest to make the query author warning and force him to double-check the data on the source countries in all nominated files.
    I added those. That was a copy-paste error, sorry, but I did correctly verify that the files needed to be deleted. They were first published in Belarus, and are in the public domain in Belarus, but not in the United States, because they were in copyright in Belarus on the URAA date in 1997 (1953 + 50 > 1997). We cannot host works first published in Belarus unless the author died before 1947 or the work was first published before 1923. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Belorussian copyright law is similar to Russian because they are ex-USSR republics. Belorussian artists first published in their home nation are okay as long as they died before 1943, as had 50 pma on their URAA date in 1997 and are 70 pma today (see en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights).  Keep Belorussian paintings. --Butko (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Belarussian paintings are not OK because the artists died after 1946. The paintings were still protected by copyright in Belarus on 12 December 1997, so they remain protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Stefan is correct here. The authors died in 1953, 1954 and were in copyright until at least 2003, so were in copyright on Belarus' 1997 URAA date, and remain copyrighted in the US. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep all. I'm against mass deletions. Each file should have its status analyzed on its own. Deleting files by Brazilian painters Antônio Parreiras or Lucílio de Albuquerque makes no sense, they both died more than 70 years ago and there's nothing complex about the Brazilian laws concerning copyright. They are not protected under the country of origin. This seems paranoic or I didn't understand, I'm sorry to say. Dornicke (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All files had their status analysed on their own before the files were nominated. Antônio Parreiras and Lucílio de Albuquerque died after 1935, so their works were protected by copyright in Brazil on 1 January 1996, meaning that their post-1922 paintings are protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. All of the paintings in this nomination (except the few ones at the top) are in the public domain in the country of origin, but none of them is in the public domain in the United States. Commons files have to be free in both the country of origin and in the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"have to be free in both the country of origin and in the source country" - I think you want to replace either "country of origin" or "source country" with "the United States" in this sentence? ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - I don't like mass-deletions and I don't like to loose media due to stupid rules, but as far as I can see (with what-ever adjustments follows from the comments prior to mine) the reasoning for deletion is well founded and argumented :( --heb [T C E] 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the remaining files have to be deleted according to the present licensing policy of Wikimedia Foundation. Which means to me: either we must get a European Commons repository following European copyright laws for European works of art inside Wikimedia Commons or someday there will arise the call for a European Wikimedia Commons fork, which would be a severe blow for Wikipedia as a global project. Something has to be done here, and I hope somebody will take the necessary steps soon. --Jeppi (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the present policy at Commons (works must be free in country of origin as well as in the U.S.) is not only problematic from an European point of view, but also for U.S. users, because it also works the other way: Works first published outside the U.S. that are in the public domain in the U.S. (e.g. because first publication before 1923) are also deleted here if they are still protected in the country of origin. For example, a painting published in 1910 in Germany by an artist who died in 1950 would be PD in the U.S., but still protected in Germany until January 1, 2021 - so it would be not acceptable on Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A European (or Canadian, or whatever) fork is essentially the only way these files could be hosted. WMF is a US organisation with assets in the US and cannot host them on any project. Even if there was a fork, WMF projects could not legally transclude images from it (it's questionable whether they could even link to them without it being contributory infringement), so it'd be necessary to fork those projects as well. I don't think most local project communities would be willing to do this, but you do have the option of doing so. We can transfer all these files except the Belarussian ones to Wikilivres after deletion, which is hosted and operated in Canada (the Belarussian ones are in copyright even in Canada). Dcoetzee (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with this request is, that the applicant has not examined the status of every paintings. The File:Sven Hedin by Carl Emil Österman 1923.jpg has been published under cc-by-sa 2.5 by its owner. The deletion request for this file seems to challenge the legitimation of the permission. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the permission is invalid since it doesn't come from the painter's heirs but from the Royal Academy of Sciences. Besides, there is no OTRS ticket, and it is too recent for COM:GOF. But that should really have gone into a separate deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly why I usually prefer to see art deletions broken up by artist (or other meaningful division), rather than thrown into a big group like this. I'd put that file into a gray area regarding OTRS versus old assertion of permission, but either way, the permission seems to come from RSAS rather than the heirs. cmadler (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan4

— All files had their status analysed on their own before the files were nominated. Antônio Parreiras and Lucílio de Albuquerque died after 1935, so their works were protected by copyright in Brazil on 1 January 1996, meaning that their post-1922 paintings are protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. All of the paintings in this nomination (except the few ones at the top) are in the public domain in the country of origin, but none of them is in the public domain in the United States. Commons files have to be free in both the country of origin and in the source country.
But that's my point. Antônio Parreiras and Lucílio de Albuquerque are Brazilian painters. They have never worked in the US, they have never produced in the US, they have never even been in the US. I bet there are not even paintings by them in American collections. What kind of legal problems could these files bring to this project? Why would anyone in the US want to challenge their copyright status, if they are under public domain in their country of origin? Dornicke (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons and the WMF are based in the US, and must follow US law. Files must be free in both the source country and the US. See the policy Commons:Licensing. cmadler (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: All of the issues raised here were discussed at great length when the URAA decision came down. If you want to change COmmons policy, please don't try to do it at a DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
English | français | polski | slovenščina | +/−

it is not okay, what happened here. All images should go back to German Commons. There is no problem in Germany and here, there would never happened this kind of deletionterror. 92.72.100.49 The copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication is a really stupid rule and we have in Germany better copyright rules. Commons and the WMF should be based in Germany. 92.72.100.49

These files are illegal to host in the United States, and cannot be hosted on German Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation project. See meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/URAA Statement: "removing the potentially affected images from Commons and placing them on a local project would not be in accordance with current Wikimedia policies." Germany would not be a bad place to host, but the US has certain advantages and the Foundation is adamant on remaining where it is, as that statement explains. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:1923_paintings&oldid=721699583"