Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Consuelo Vanderbilt;coronation- 9 augustus 1902.jpg
IP User:85.133.1.176 added the following comment: Again, this is a V&A image, which I personally have cleaned from the negative. Whoever lifted it from the Lafayette website knew that he/she was pilfering and could not be bothered giving a source for the image. As for the copyright, stating that it is an old image is the most puerile form of plagiarism I have seen.
Although the source is lacking, in regards to the other point IP is making, I am fairly sure it is PD because of age (US 1902) (so it is correctly licensed) but would like confirmation. We can then delete the comment off the page/move it to talk? Not sure why IP user says "again" as I don't see any other contributions by this IP besides the two to this image. Thanks for your help.
--Deadstar (msg) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- See COM:ART#United Kingdom, en:Talk:Sarah Bernhardt#Image copyright, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 9#Copyright_info_pages.3F, and Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/04#Image:Lafayette 1899 arthur reginald french.jpg. The Lafayette archives would certainly hold a kind of copyright for 25 years on previously unpublished photos (known as publication right) in the EU. In the U.S., I don't know exactly, since it would depends on the year the image was first published by the Lafayette archives. Whether their clean-up efforts would give them a (new) copyright even on previously published materials (such as the Sarah Bernhardt image) is questionable.
Certainly not in the U.S., see en:WP:PD#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain. So, when and where was this first published? Lupo 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- The issue of cleaning up an image is a red herring. If you were to use a scan of a Sarah Bernhardt image as published in 1899 it would look nowhere near as good as the images your members "borrow" from the Lafayette site. Thus, if someone posts a scan from a faded old newspaper, then the image is out of copyright. If they lift a cleaned image from the Lafayette site, they are in fact using a "version" of the image - i.e. the version which I have cleaned. At the very least, the source and an acknowledgement should be given - even though people do not bother of the courtesy of requesting permission to use. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.141.81.143 (talk • contribs)
- BTW, the original is here and dates to June 26, 1911, not to August 9, 1902. For a list of possible photographers, see [1]. Lupo 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I can only say I'm glad I asked :) - thanks for that Lupo. I think we might end up coming to the same conclusion as for the 1899 image mentioned above: delete as first publication is unknown and presumed to be the website that it's taken from. Deadstar (msg) 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome ;-) Yes, I think this image should be
Deleted as it appears to have been unpublished while it was copyrighted and then published in 2002 by V&A, and so they would indeed have a copyright on it. BTW, these photos are British works, not U.S. works. The Sarah Bernhardt image (yes, I know this discussion is not about that image, but still...) might be fine though, as it appears to have been published in 1899 and the photographer is dead for more than 70 years. Lupo 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome ;-) Yes, I think this image should be
- Reluctantly Delete. Horrific abuse of copyright law by special interest groups. 1. Extend copyright indefinitely 2. ? 3. Profit ! Megapixie 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. In the absence of any suggestion of any earlier publication, the Lafayette Archives has a type of copyright called Publication right over this image. See UK Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996. MichaelMaggs 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
