This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions. See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive.

• File:Benjamin Britten-Karsh.jpg
• File:Ernest Hemingway-Karsh.jpg
• File:Anna Magnani-Karsh.jpg
• File:Marcel-Marceau-karsh.jpg
• File:Jascha Heifetz-Karsh.jpg
• File:Cecil B. DeMille-Karsh.jpg
• File:David Sarnoff-Karsh.jpg

Seven photos by Karsh were deleted with a somewhat light rationale that does not fit with any typical guidelines. I'm requesting some other reviewers examine the copyright status of the deleted photos. The rationales given for deletion seem to rest on personal opinion and speculation:

• The editor simply gave an opinion that he doesn't think the copyright information is correct, but without saying why. However, there were numerous links to prove the source of the photos and their copyright status in the U.S.
• They noted a different shape of the photo as a rationale, yet that reasoning implies that the photos were the same except for cropping. I generally crop photos to fit the page or infobox. The editor made no inquiry into why an identical photo, with one apparently cropped a bit, should make any difference.
• They noted that the Hemingway photo was not exactly the same as one linked, which was only for background about the photographer. Yet the purpose of the link was to show other similar photos by Karsh, not to provide the source of the photo deleted. Also, the magazine published many photos of Hemingway, on the inside and reverse. In any case, the photos are essentially identical, a fact that was simply ignored.
• For a photo taken as a staff photographer for a U.S. magazine, which is now in the public domain, it would go against the Commons precautionary principle to simply delete a photo based on the unsupported comment that it was not necessary to register a copyright in Canada in the 1950s.

Karsh's apparent PD photos would be of great benefit to WP, so I'm hoping some other editors will review these and possibly undelete them. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, WP could benefit from many pictures. The problem on Commons is, we have to be reasonable certain about the (c) status. You'll need to come up with more / better evidence, rather than repeating your reasoning from the DR. Under this circumstances I'd not be able to restore any of the images. No, I am not asking any questions, you need to provide the answers without being asked. I'll leave this request open, maybe someone has a good idea that will enable us to keep the images. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose I am the deleting Admin. I made my decision on several factors, but principally on the simple reason that the Hemingway photo I deleted was not the same image that appears on the cover of Wisdom -- see http://collectingoldmagazines.com/2967/wisdom-the-magazine-of-knowledge-and-education/ for the actual photo. Since the rationale for PD was based largely on the fact that the seven images first appeared on the cover of the magazine, the fact that at least one of them did not fit that rationale seems persuasive.

As for the shape, the images I deleted are larger, vertically, than the cover images, so they are not crops from the cover, but are either different (as in the case of the Hemingway), or at least contain additional material. Copyright is fairly literal -- the cover images are probably PD, but similar photographs or even the same images before they were cropped for the cover are not covered by the PD status of the covers.

"In any case, the photos are essentially identical, a fact that was simply ignored" is simply wrong. "Essentially identical" doesn't cut it in copyright law. However many images Karsh took of these seven people, only the actual image or images that appeared in the magazine, in the same crop as they appeared in the magazine, are probably PD. Other, essentially identical images, are still copyrighted.

These images are not scans of halftones, so wherever they came from, they did not come directly from the magazine. I think the best thing here would be for those who want to keep these to give us an actual source that shows the deleted images as printed in Wisdom. The link I gave shows Hemingway -- research can probably show others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The famous photographer is w:Yousuf Karsh -- let's link his whole name. I thought I remembered there was some tricky wrinkle to the copyright status of all his images, but, from Talk:Yousuf_Karsh, it looks like my memory played tricks on me. Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info. to that talk page about one of his most famous portraits, of Einstein. As for Hemingway, I just checked the actual Wisdom magazine and the deleted photo is the lead photo of the article, page 4. As for the obvious cropping of his original photos, on the magazine cover they had to be cropped squarish to fit the formatted space. I don't remember the actual source of the photos since they were deleted. But for this one issue, there were a total of 17 different photos of Hemingway, posed and candid, in the article. That same number of photos is typical in the other issues focused on notables, such as Jonas Salk. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deleting admin states above, "I think the best thing here would be for those who want to keep these to give us an actual source that shows the deleted images as printed in Wisdom," which has now been done, along with the fact that number of major bio articles are lacking a lead image, wouldn't it be best to restore these? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "which has now been done" above. Wikiwatcher has given us no links, not even the Hemingway, and I don't get the impression that he or she has actually compared the deleted images with images in Wisdom. I'd be happy to restore these -- they are great pictures -- but until we can see that the deleted images actually appeared in Wisdom cropped as they were in the magazine, I don't think we can do it..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Just tell me how to provide a direct scan or photo of the page or pages that a photo in question is on. Wisdom is not available online, but I have direct access to all issues. Another way is for you to restore a photo, like Hemingway, and I'll upload the magazine page over it, and then undo the upload so both copies are viewable. I think that will work. Then you can do the others one at a time if you want. Also, I wasn't aware that AGF was not a policy on the Commons.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We're done here. Verifiable source links/references have been requested from the uploader, who appears to have ignored that query. Since files whose copyright status cannot be determined in certainty are deleted, these files shall stay deleted. -FASTILY 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopened -- we're not done, as Wikiwatcher's last offer solves the problem. Scans of the actual Wisdom pages would be great -- I think we are all satisfied that the magazine did not renew its copyrights, so that the images from it are PD. They can certainly be uploaded using the same file names as above. The deleted images will, however, remain deleted. As I said above, copyright is very specific. The images as printed in Wisdom are PD -- other versions, even prints from the same negative, are not, unless they are identical in size, resolution, and crop.

As for AGF, I always assume good faith, but only to a point. Since Wikiwatcher used "essentially identical" above as an acceptable reason to justify keeping these, it seems reasonable to assume that he or she does not completely understand the applicable law. I think it was appropriate to ask that the community be able to see for themselves if the images were actually identical and not merely very similar. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and upload the images above directly from the magazine. Since the magazine is a large format, 10 1/2" x 13", I won't be able to do a direct flatbed scan (max 8 1/2" width) and will have to revert to taking a photograph of the page. I've done that before with some stills, such as File:Betty Hutton.jpg, although the quality will be affected, since trying to get even lighting without glare and keeping the image in focus at all 4 corners with a close-up lens and a hand-held camera is harder than scanning. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded four so far. Since Wisdom is not indexed, I don't know if the other three came from inside some issues and don't know what the original image sources were. I also renamed them since I kept getting a warning message when I tried to use the old file name. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral input is requested as to why the image was deleted. First, I don't think that an editor whose only edits for the last two weeks have focused on deleting my images can be considered neutral. In any case, the image which is supported with verifiable evidence as to its apparent PD status, is tagged as having "No evidence" and "guesswork," and deleted without comment. Whether the deletion is arbitrary, without basis, or non-neutral, can someone offer any meaningful feedback? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to go into who may or may not be neutral. The closing admin said only one word ("Deleted"), so I have to assume they agreed with the nominator, but I can't see why. Your arguments (about how and when it was published) seem strong enough to justify keeping it. While the nominator did object to them, including how one of your points was worded, you addressed those objections clearly and IMO convincingly. (Your argument contained one minor error, I think; Streisand was still represented by Solters' firm at least until 1988,[1] although this isn't critical as it was no longer known as Solters and Sabinson in 1978.[2])

There might be some uncertainty about the details, but that alone doesn't seem put the free status of the file into significant doubt. So unless some details challenging the free status of the file come to light (e.g. that the photo had a copyright notice printed on its back), I think it should be undeleted. --Avenue (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your out of copyriht argument is based on en:Film still#Public domain, but all I read there is basically “it might be out of copyright, but don’t rely on that assumption”. Looking at Alan Hale, Jr next to that Wikipedia paragraph I see something like “please smile, I’d like to take a photo”. The Streisand photo on the other hand has some more artistic value like a model shot.

Bottom line: Too many maybes and assumtions, too few hard facts. -- 32X (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not it at all. It has nothing to do with any artistic value (and actually, that has little relevance to copyright in any case). The photograph was undoubtedly copyrightable; however U.S. law said that any published, distributed copies had to have a copyright notice on them. This was very, very often not done with publicity photographs (which were not film stills, but rather separate works which were not derivative), and therefore those particular photos entered the public domain as soon as they were distributed by the movie studios. I can't see the files in question, but if the upload has evidence of being physically distributed itself before 1978, and it shows front and back and there is no copyright notice, then that is evidence enough. If it is apparent that publicity shots were in fact created by a movie studio or other publicity office, and those physical copies show signs of being in someone else's possession (i.e. distributed) in the right time frames, there is generally enough evidence. Photos distributed before 1964 had the additional requirement of being renewed 27 or 28 years later, which is another avenue they could have fallen into the public domain. Photos which stayed in the movie studio's archives very well may not have been distributed, so those would not be OK, and there are other difficult cases (for example, you would not expect a notice on a wire photo, since the physical printed copy at the other end was not itself distributed -- not sure of the rules entirely there, but the lack of notice at the other end most likely would not serve to end copyright). So... any argument for keeping, or deleting, should be about the evidence seen on the physical photo itself (ones which lack a back side are often problematic). One can't make a general rule about all publicity photos, but the specific evidence for each photo should bring the status into sharper focus. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who initially nominated this file for deletion, I assure you that 1) the uploader provided no actual evidence regarding the date or circumstances of the image's original publication or distribution; 2) the image upload did not present the back of the image; and 3) nothing about the physical photo itself provided any information about the date or manner of the original publication, or that (as was typically the case for publicity photos) the image was distributed for the purpose of further publication. Indeed, there was no evidence that this form was the original publication of the image, which might easily have been previously published with a copyright notice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but one point -- it would not matter if had been earlier published with a copyright notice; once copies were distributed without notice then copyright was lost. Notice had to be on *all* published copies, not just initial ones. If there was a case where relatively few copies were without notice, sometimes the copyright was ruled kept, but in general it had to be on all copies. So, looking at the evidence on the actual upload is usually enough. Sometimes uploads have the back or uncropped versions in the earlier file revisions. It was also not required that the copies be distributed specifically for further publication -- that first distribution was publication in and of itself and required notices. But yes, not showing the back (or not having the back available on the web somewhere) would be an issue -- a notice there would likely be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, the back of the image has not been uploaded, and I acknowledge above that this could be a weak point in the case for keeping it. However, printed along the bottom margin of the photo is the following text: "BARBRA STREISAND Press: Solters & Sabinson, Inc. 62 W. 45 St., NYC". This seems a natural place to put the copyright notice, if there was one.

You don't seem to have followed my point about the name of her press agent's firm, and what this means about the date this photo was produced. Solters was part of Solters & Sabinson Inc during the late 1960s and early 1970s, but by 1972 was operating as Solters / Sabinson / Roskin Inc.,[3] and by March 1975 though 1980 as Solters & Roskin, Inc.[4] Together with the notation on the photo, this means that the photo was produced by 1972 at the latest, i.e. well before 1978.

I believe it doesn't matter whether this was the original publication of the photo or not, only that it was an authorized publication.

I'd be happy to temporarily undelete the photo for the purposes of this discussion, if people think it's necessary. The uploaded image does look very similar (and possibly identical, as far as I can tell) to the photo for sale here (although it was a high resolution scan of the original, not an oblique photograph as shown on that website). The similarities extend to the placement of her signature and the two brown splodges near the upper edge. The signature suggests to me that the original was at least intended for distribution, probably around the time of its production.

While I'd agree we don't have an absolutely cast iron case that this image is free, where there are uncertainties (over publication and copyright notice), the evidence we do have suggests that the photo is free. Personally I'm not seeing strong grounds for significant doubt. --Avenue (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this copy of the photo says she was 24 when it was taken, so that would be in 1966/67. --Avenue (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "evidence we do have" is grossly insufficient. What we're being asked to decide here is whether a photograph found on an auction site, without any direct evidence as to the date or manner of original publication, should be presumed to be a free image simply because the lion's share of such images are free. (Much of the discussion here ignores the doctrine of "limited publication" (see [5], and note the treatise's comment that "the courts have pushed the limited publication doctrine to its farthest reaches to avoid a forfeiture of copyright"). That presumption would not be a rational one to indulge in terms of the WMF policies regarding free content for reuse by third parties. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your source supports the opposite conclusion about "limited publication" for publicity photos. The examples given are for unpublished manuscripts given to the trade for criticism or review, architectural plans given out to contractors for bids, or advance copies of a speech before it was presented. Of course such confidential materials would be "limited." Then consider a more relevant legal source, such as Warner Bros. Entertainment v. X One X Productions, (2011), where the court affirmed that publicity stills were in the public domain because they had not been published with the required notice or because their copyrights had not been renewed, and that the mere dissemination of such photos constituted a "general publication" without notice. And this fits the basic definition of publication per the U.S. copyright law, that "publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display."

As Nimmer states, "Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible." It's another reason why some of your latest deletion requests are erroneous. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Minecraft cube.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The file was previously kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minecraft cube.svg as being PD-shape; indeed, the deleting administrator closed the linked-to deletion request as "Kept: Looks like PD-shape to me". FastLizard4 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, I've changed my opinion on the matter since the the April 2013 DR. I believe the file does not meet the criteria for PD-shape because it is simply too complex (consists of too many artistically placed shapes & gradients) to be easily recreated. We've deleted files much 'simpler' than this in the past for the same reason. -FASTILY 08:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if the uploader had named the file, say, Cubic meter of dirt with growing grass from isometric perspective vector drawing.svg? Additionally, how does this differ from images like File:(in)homogen.svg or File:13th Street Universal HD.svg (it could be argued that the slanted text and positioning is clearly artistic)? File:7-up Logo.svg seems to be a clear copyright violation, as well, by applying your point about artistically placed shapes and gradients. --FastLizard4 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, other stuff exists. Files for deletion on Commons are judged on their own merit and not in comparison to others. I repeat, this file exceeds the threshold of originality for Commons, so we simply cannot host it. -FASTILY 21:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and I would appreciate it if you would kindly stop patronizing me. Foremost, you have yet to actually answer any of the points I've raised here, instead relying on redirecting the argument. The very page you link to indeed indicates that, in some cases, comparison-based arguments are valuable. Certainly, if you honestly believe that Minecraft cube.svg exceeds the threshold of originality, you can explain why, say, 7-up Logo.svg doesn't meet the threshold. Indeed, I feel it is arguable - and I am going to argue - that many of the images listed on COM:TOO are more complex and "original" than a simple isometric cube; the Best Western logo I feel is a prime example of that. --FastLizard4 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, because OSE is not a valid argument, and because you're continuing to make comparisons between two incomparable items. -FASTILY 01:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems like you're making a tautological argument; that the two items cannot be compared to each other because they're incomparable. So why are they incomparable? --FastLizard4 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photographed is clicked by me and all the copyright remains with me. Being a new contributor I am slightly confused how to put copyright information. Pls. assist...

--Tarunkaran78 (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the deletion request had nothing to do with licensing, but rather about scope. Is this a picture of you, and if so, do you intend on putting this on your user page? --O (谈 • висчвын) 08:38, 11 August 2013 (GMT)