Commons:Deletion requests/Post-1923 works by Leo Gestel

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.

Post-1923 works by Leo Gestel

Leo Gestel (see Category:Leo Gestel) was a Dutch painter who died in 1941. The Netherlands was 70 pma on the URAA date in 1996 (see en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights), so his works were still in copyright in The Netherlands then. Consequently the copyright of any of his works published 1923 or later (like all of the above) was restored in the United States, and they will remain under copyright in the United States until at least 2019. Commons:Licensing requires that works be in the public domain in the United States. A few works are marked "c. 1922" - I included them since "about 1922" might be "1923". Many works have no known date, and some research might turn up a pre-1923 date, but lacking that information we must delete them. All the ones with specific dates can be placed in the appropriate "Undelete in" category by adding 96, and I've sorted them to facilitate this (for "circa" dates I added a year just to be safe). Any unknown ones can be undeleted in 2037, assuming none were first published posthumously. --Dcoetzee (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since noone ever complained about such images, I think we should resist from copyright paranoia and Dcoetzee should find something really useful to do on the Commons – there is plenty. For all such cases concerned with URAA crap:

Keep until takedown notices; and seriously think about forking the Commons with a European server and European chapter responsible. --FA2010 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA, as well as the Foundation's statement therein, was very clear. Commons does not qualify as a reliance party under Golan, and we must delete works which are copyrighted in the United States. I understand your frustration - you worked hard to upload all these excellent files, which by all rights should be in the public domain. The URAA is a terrible law that achieves no good for the world and I would love to see it repealed - but we must enforce the law if we are to protect our content reusers from liability. There are also numerous problems with forking Commons, as explained in detail at Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas. I would suggest that in the meantime these files can be uploaded to Wikilivres, which is based in Canada and can legally host them. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least transfer them to nl.wikipedia.org before the verdict delete is executed. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not possible, because nl.wikipedia does not have an Exemption Doctrine Policy (meta:Non-free content). If and when they enact one, some of the files can be transferred there, but only if they comply with the policy, which must follow US fair use law - if it's anything like en.wikipedia's policy, it would require the files to be reduced in resolution, used minimally, and be currently in use, among other requirements. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exemption doctrine? These images are in the public domain in the Netherlands. They will be used locally there. Or do I overlook a detail? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No WMF project is permitted to host works that are copyrighted in the United States without an Exemption Doctrine, regardless of what country their primary audience is in, because the sites are hosted on US servers by a US organization. See meta:Resolution:Licensing policy which states: "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) [is] a project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed..." You can contact WMF directly about this if you wish, but I am confident they will not permit nl.wikipedia to host works that are copyrighted in the US. You do have the option of creating a fork which is operated and managed in the Netherlands (although I wouldn't recommend that either). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like being taken hostage. US-law-quirks are going to dictate what we can or cannot see... There must be a way around this. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWe should find a way to keep these images, they Are in the public domain. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law is clear: these images can't be on Commons until they enter the public domain in the United States. It is unfortunate that the year is unknown for many of the paintings; it is likely that there are some in that group which were published before 1923, but without more information, we can't tell which ones. The only thing we can do seems to be to assume that the paintings were published during the lifetime of the painter and thus apply life+95 years for those, unless anyone provides us with more information. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning by Coetzee an Stefan is to serious, to literal. Server farms are created all over the world. If I create a website in my home country I am not aware of the location of the hosting server. It could be in the US or wherever. But I don't need to consider the copyright rules in that server country, only in the publishing country. Therefor, transfering these files to the local nl.wikipedia.org is a solution to this problem, at least for the Netherlands, Gestel's home country. So, please do. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained above, this would be strictly against Foundation policy, as nl.wikipedia is operated by WMF, a US organization - whether or not the server location controls jurisdiction, they have assets in the US and are legally vulnerable there. I understand that it is frustrating and wish that the US observed the rule of the shorter term, but they currently do not. The works can be transferred to Wikilivres which is based and operated out of Canada. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: All of the issues mentioned above were discussed at great length after the URAA decision came down. A DR is not the place to change established WMF policy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:15, 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]

My apologies if I appear haughty. I do get seriously frustrated over discussing the same issues over and over, again and again, in DRs. None of us like the URAA rules, but the whole question was discussed with tens of thousands of words when the decision was handed down. The WMF Board has made an official decision on how its projects, including Commons, must handle affected material. Discussing it again at great length on individual DRs is just a waste of all of our time. If you want to change the WMF policy, you must do it at the Board level -- none of us here can change the rules under which we operate. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean you personally, Jim. I want to address the organization for not trying to find a solution for the rest of us, outside of the USA. Although several people maintain there is no solution, I feel that this love of ease for not really trying to find a solution, compares a bit to Hollywood; when one of their movies addresses a global problem, it is simplified to the US. When they are well, all is well. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I don't think it is just those of you who are outside the USA who need a solution -- we all need one. I've heard pretty good reasons why none of the ones offered would work. I think that a significant part of the strength of Commons is that it is truly multi-national, so that the thought of breaking it up into national segments run by multiple local in-country organizations would weaken us. I also think that it would make fundraising more difficult -- although I couldn't find a breakout of WMF donors by country, I note that all but one of the donors giving more than $100,000 are Americans. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the WMF budget comes from American sources that would be much less likely to fund separate operations in other countries.

I think it is a mistake to think that good minds have not worked hard on the problem. Keep in mind that no country is perfect. Say we moved to Spain, to gain its very broad FOP (public spaces indoors and out, all works including text). We'd gain the FOP and have no URAA, but lose all of the no-notice US material and all of PD-Art because Bridgeman would no longer apply -- most of our old masters' paintings would go away. On balance I don't know whether that's a gain or a loss in value of material, but it's not a simple question. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 | +/−

Commons:Deletion requests/Post-1923 works by Leo Gestel

Post-1923 works by Leo Gestel

Navigation menu

Search