Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pat Ast and Shelley Duvall.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
No proof of one pre-2003 publication made. As potentially unpublished, the photo may still be copyrighted until the end of 2095. In other words, should be undeleted in 2096. George Ho (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It is a publicity photo; this is not a personal snapshot, this is a professional, posed photograph. Also it was distributed, as here it is from another source VINTAGE 1975 SHELLEY DUVALL PAT AST PARTY ARTISTIC.... --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The same photographer of this photo most likely created the other photo that was deleted from this project. Also, that source is just a shopping listing; it doesn't really tell us whether it was previously published or not. Even year of its creation isn't enough for me. George Ho (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, it does seem clear that photo was made in the same photo session, the same people are wearing the same costumes. I think that other deletion was incorrect too. It didn't have anyone defending the image that noticed that deletion request. You'll notice even the uploader didn't respond to it. Also it didn't have this alternate seller of a different old print of the same photograph. The source does not say it was published, the source is evidence that it was published. Since there are two people selling old prints of that photo, clearly there were multiple old prints of that photo. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wanna contact the admin who deleted the other image or request undeletion? George Ho (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- If this one is kept, probably. --GRuban (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since I was the deleting admin for the other image, I'll just follow this discussion. If kept, I'll immediately undelete. The other image didn't have any indication that it was published in the 1970s. Per COM:PCP, I treated it as published after 1989. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wanna contact the admin who deleted the other image or request undeletion? George Ho (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, it does seem clear that photo was made in the same photo session, the same people are wearing the same costumes. I think that other deletion was incorrect too. It didn't have anyone defending the image that noticed that deletion request. You'll notice even the uploader didn't respond to it. Also it didn't have this alternate seller of a different old print of the same photograph. The source does not say it was published, the source is evidence that it was published. Since there are two people selling old prints of that photo, clearly there were multiple old prints of that photo. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The same photographer of this photo most likely created the other photo that was deleted from this project. Also, that source is just a shopping listing; it doesn't really tell us whether it was previously published or not. Even year of its creation isn't enough for me. George Ho (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep To me the evidence presented my GRuban is sufficient to dispel any doubt about its publication, especially since under pre-1979 American law the hurdle for publication was quite low. Felix QW (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep It sure looks like the print was made in the 1970s. If copies were handed out or distributed, it was probably PD. There are no typical markers of a publicity photo, though. If the photographer made the prints at the time but only sold them years later, they could still be under copyright. If the seller was someone the photographer gave prints to, then they likely were PD long ago. There do seem to be other copies out there though, which may be an indicator they were distributed more widely (or maybe it was the same EBay seller, or a re-seller). The Ebay auction was at least from 2014, maybe 2012, which is time for some copies to seep around. Given the other photos from the same time, it was certainly a professional photo shoot. Would feel better if we could find some other, older copies out there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)