Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noré Brunel - dédicace .jpg

This file was initially tagged by Shev123 as no permission (No permission since). Subject lived 1886-1954, possible PD? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This file isn't "own work" and it is impossible to know if it's DP or not. --Shev123 (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep "PD-EU-no author disclosure". When you scan an object, that derivative image you create is your own work, even though it doesn't transfer the original copyright to you. --RAN (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if we assumed your position, you still need to comply with the copyright of the original photo for using the derivative, RAN. Platonides (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From the bottom of the book cover visible on the photo, the photo shows Honoré Brunel at a book signing event for his 1930 book Sous le chant des sirènes. From the conjuction of other information provided by the uploader on other pages (1, 2, 3), it can be concluded that the uploader claims to be the grandchild (either granddaughter or grandson, as the uploader refers to themself in the feminine form in one place and in the masculine form in another place) of the person pictured on the photo. Given that the uploader's mother (Lise Brunel, the daughter of the pictured person) was born in 1922, it is not possible that the uploader took this photo. Even considering the uploader's claim of being the heir of Lise Brunel, it is not plausible that then 8-year-old Lise Brunel took this photo. The origin and actual authorship are not provided. Therefore, the claim of copyright by the uploader appears insufficiently explained by a rationale. Another user recently removed the uploader's CC license and replaced it with a claim of public domain anonymous without providing evidence of such publication to support it. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: When you scan an object, that derivative image you create is your own work, even though it doesn't transfer the original copyright to you. --RAN (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Publication, for copyright purposes, is when the image leaves the custody of the photographer and is seen by the public. I could see an argument that this image remained with the photographer if it appeared in an archive donated by the photographer and was scanned from an original negative. For instance the Library of Congress in the USA has several collections donated by the photographer of their negatives and proof copies, and they are considered unpublished until proved published, because we know they remained with the photographer. I have performed due diligence looking to see if this image was ever listed as remaining unseen by the public in an archive, but have found no trace. --RAN (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-France + PD-1996. --Yann (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]