Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/13

12 June 2024

14 June 2024

Deletion requests on 13 June 2024

• archive
• gallery
• purge this page's cache
• ±

June 13

Template:PD-State of Palestine

This template has multiple issues and should be either fixed or deleted. According to CRT "The situation regarding copyright is unclear" with 4 possible copyright laws which might be applicable: Jordanian, Israeli, Egyptian and British and each one has different terms. The template itself is not comprehensible

• First sentence says that work is PD and to see CRT for details: the page that states that copyright situation is unclear
• Second sentence mentions British law, "Arab Copyright Treaty of 1981" (which does not seem to apply to Palestine), "Basic Law of governmental Palestine" (?) and " Israeli copyright laws" in a way that makes no sense to me.
• Sentence three: mirrors {{PD-anon-70}}
• Sentence four: mirrors {{PD-IsraelGov}}

I think we should delete this template and review handful of files using it to see if {{PD-anon-70}} or {{PD-IsraelGov}} apply. Than maybe we can write a new template to cover British Copyright Ordinance of 1924 and Copyright Act of 1911, if there is consensus that those laws still apply, as seem to be the case in CRT and Village pump. --Jarekt (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aymatth2, JWilz12345, Clindberg, and Asclepias: --Jarekt (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think our best guess is that the UK 1911 Copyright Act (as applied to Palestine in 1924 or something) is still the law in place. I don't think any of Egypt, Jordan, or Israel has applied their copyright laws there, even if under their control. I'm not sure we should delete the tag, as it would be useful for works that originate from there, as the law could easily change and we may need to identify them. The tag claims that Israeli laws apply, and not sure I've ever seen a reference for that statement. The 1924 ordinance (which applied the UK 1911 law, with some small modifications) is in place though. I think we should change this to be a 50pma tag basically, with photos 50pr. I would not try to use generic tags as it is useful to be able to categorize/check photos using this tag in case the situations change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Delete "I think our best guess is that the UK 1911 Copyright Act (as applied to Palestine in 1924 or something) is still the law in place." I'm very uncomfortable with guessing here. The template shouldn't exist unless we're absolutely sure about the applicable laws (and can explain them better). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep and modify the language per Lindberg. --RAN (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

File:64 - YZ9s7jg (50062578451).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Viriditas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://collections.okeeffemuseum.org/object/1148/

I had actually enquired about the copyright status of this 1939 painting by American painter Georgia O'Keeffe at the COM:VPC, and there was the tentative conclusion that it might be in the public domain in the US (Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/04#1934 painting by Georgia O'Keeffe). Are there further opinions? Rosenzweig τ 08:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I read your discussion. There’s no indication the painting was ever in the public domain. In your discussion, you said the paintings were sold in 1939 or thereafter. Only one painting from that series was sold in 1939, Cup of Ginger, and it immediately entered the collection of the Baltimore Museum of Art. This image of the painting in question was in the hands of Doris Bry, who at the time, represented O'Keeffe’s estate. The work was put up for sale in 1976-1977 for the first time. It’s preposterous to think that O'Keeffe let her copyright lapse, as she was fiercely defensive of her work and was obsessive about copyright. You said you looked though the Internet Archive files for evidence of copyright, but those are notoriously sparse. It’s insane to think O'Keeffe let her copyright lapse. I should note that O'Keeffe shows up a lot in the legal literature, so if these works were in the public domain, we would know. The O'Keeffe Foundation, notably issued a cease and desist letter in 1996 to Adobe, who were forced to destroy a photo CD with O'Keeffe’s images on it. The copyright literature is chock full of O'Keeffe defending her copyright, particularly in regards to images from the 1930s. Given what we know, it is unlikely that there is any other American artist who has so forcefully protected their work. To suggest that O'Keeffe let her copyright lapse doesn’t line up with what we know. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, that is another opinion. And it's good that we get it here, spelled out, instead of just a speedy deletion request with nothing more than a URL. If you're already aware that there was a discussion regarding the copyright status of the file, a regular deletion request is the way to go unless said discussion had a crystal clear outcome. Which was not the case here. And could you please dial back a bit on adjectives like "preposterous", "insane" etc.? Thank you. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

See Chapter 1900 (2021). Per 1905.1, the painting in question received "limited publication" in 1940 versus "general publication" when it was sold in the 1970s. "Section 101 of the Copyright Act states a work is published when copies or phonorecords of that work are distributed “to the public.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, publication occurs when one or more copies or phonorecords are distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work. If a work exists only in one copy – such as a painting embodied solely in a canvas – the work may be considered published if that copy is distributed to the public with the authorization of the copyright owner. No such copy was distributed until the 1970s. "A limited publication is the distribution of copies of a work to a definitely selected group with a limited purpose and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution, or sale. A limited publication is not considered a distribution to the public and, therefore, is not publication." That describes the Georgia O'Keeffe: Exhibition of Oils and Pastels 1940 exhibition.[1] "...the work may be considered published if that copy is distributed to the public with the authorization of the copyright owner...[such as] Selling the original copy of a painting at an auction." That eventually occurred in 1976. This is also one of the many reasons O'Keeffe scholars have noted there is a dearth of critical literature on certain O'Keeffe paintings until after she died. If a particular painting was indeed "published", that facilitates critical commentary and attention, and leads to multiple works publishing image reproductions and essays about the work. In this case, the first major reproductions and essays about this work didn't occur until 1990, mostly because it wasn't "published" to the general public until 1976. Yes, several works from 1939 that were part of this series and appeared at the exhibition in 1940 did receive the status of "general publication", but that's because one of the works famously entered a major museum collection as a gift, and two other works were famously commissioned by a pineapple company for an ad campaign, and their PR department notoriously drummed up attention for those two works by publishing them in major American magazines in that same year. All three works received major coverage and had their images widely reproduced. That fulfills the criterion for general publication, whereas it is not met by White Bird of Paradise until the late 1970s. This is self-evident. For example, if we assume this painting was published to the general public in 1939-1940, we would expect to see some attention given to it, or at least reproductions made like we do the other three works from the same series. There is none until 1990. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Delete In all of the discussion above, no one has mentioned the word "notice". I don't see anything that meets the requirements of Section 18 of the 1909 Act for notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)