User talk:Jameslwoodward
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward
My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"
Robert T. deGavre[edit]
Not sure these should have been refused undeletion.
If his father in law took the pictures, he inherited the copyright and can license them. That was the only thing missing originally, was what license he wanted on them. If they were taken by other people on his camera, then copies were distributed to him without restriction meaning publication without notice and they are PD. I think it would be safer to just assume an heirs copyright ownership and let him license them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's possible in this case that they weren't revealed to the public until after 1989. The uploader seems to have inherited them in the 1990s, and these might have only been published when they were put online. Abzeronow (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, which is why I would simply ask the uploader what license they want to give. Apparently that was missing. If you think the photographer being someone else matters though, that means he had prints, and handing out prints to friends most likely constituted U.S. publication at the time. I would indeed simply assume a copyright, but assume the uploader has the rights to license them. Which they seemed prepared to do, but the conversation never got there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Carl, Abzeronow, it is my understanding that deGavre, the father in law, is the subject, not the photographer. The photographer is unknown. I also understand that part of the claim was that it was deGavre's camera, but as we know, that is irrelevant. As for handing out prints, we were told that the images were slides, not negatives. While you could have had prints made from slides, if that happened at all, it would have been after he returned home. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like he was the photographer on some of them, and the subject of others. Slides, prints, whatever -- copies got given out, in the possession of someone else, without restrictions. I'm sure that was after returning home, but that would still have been before 1989 (or 1978). Before 1978, ownership of copyright would be cloudier -- daGarve would have owned the negatives. Not sure the real photographers had much way to claim copyright, if copies were not given out -- that is either ownership by deGarve, or maybe abandonment, or publishing without notice. Not sure any of the actual photographers have a way of proving ownership anyways, and if deGarve participated in some of the copyrightable decisions, he could be a co-owner of copyright too. Deletion in this situation I think is beyond extreme; there are theoretical doubts (as always) but I can't really find a significant doubt. I would err on the side that deGarve owns the copyrights and the heirs should license them. If someone else claims copyright and brings forth further information we could deal with it then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Carl, I'm surprised at your reasoning, which strikes me as a violation of PCP. The two images at issue are both of deGarve himself. We are told that he brought the slides home from Korea and they went in a box which ended up with his step-son, who made the UnDR. There is no claim that they were shared with anyone else. And, again, there were no negatives -- these are slides, which could not have been made into prints in Korea. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's not that. Korea has nothing to do with it. It sounds like they were taken with deGarve's own camera. If deGarve had them developed and never gave them out, he very well could own copyright (or his heirs, rather). This is before 1978. No other photographer could prove ownership -- just like asking a passerby to take a photo of you with your camera. If someone else got them developed and gave deGarve slides, that is publication right then, presumably without notice, same as with prints. I would tend to assume deGarve actually does own copyright, and needs a free license from the heirs. If anyone else owns copyright you'd have to explain how deGarve got copies (and slides are copies) without it being publication. Like passerby photos, it's best to just assume the subject does own the copyright and ask for a license. I think that's all we needed to explain to the uploader, to ask which license they wanted to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your reasoning -- I thought that several years ago we firmly and finally established that in the case of a passer-by taking your picture with your camera, that the passer-by owns the copyright and the fact that it is your camera is irrelevant. If you Google, "who owns copyright when someone takes a photo with your camera", you will get a uniform series of responses confirming this, including:
- No, it's not that. Korea has nothing to do with it. It sounds like they were taken with deGarve's own camera. If deGarve had them developed and never gave them out, he very well could own copyright (or his heirs, rather). This is before 1978. No other photographer could prove ownership -- just like asking a passerby to take a photo of you with your camera. If someone else got them developed and gave deGarve slides, that is publication right then, presumably without notice, same as with prints. I would tend to assume deGarve actually does own copyright, and needs a free license from the heirs. If anyone else owns copyright you'd have to explain how deGarve got copies (and slides are copies) without it being publication. Like passerby photos, it's best to just assume the subject does own the copyright and ask for a license. I think that's all we needed to explain to the uploader, to ask which license they wanted to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Carl, I'm surprised at your reasoning, which strikes me as a violation of PCP. The two images at issue are both of deGarve himself. We are told that he brought the slides home from Korea and they went in a box which ended up with his step-son, who made the UnDR. There is no claim that they were shared with anyone else. And, again, there were no negatives -- these are slides, which could not have been made into prints in Korea. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like he was the photographer on some of them, and the subject of others. Slides, prints, whatever -- copies got given out, in the possession of someone else, without restrictions. I'm sure that was after returning home, but that would still have been before 1989 (or 1978). Before 1978, ownership of copyright would be cloudier -- daGarve would have owned the negatives. Not sure the real photographers had much way to claim copyright, if copies were not given out -- that is either ownership by deGarve, or maybe abandonment, or publishing without notice. Not sure any of the actual photographers have a way of proving ownership anyways, and if deGarve participated in some of the copyrightable decisions, he could be a co-owner of copyright too. Deletion in this situation I think is beyond extreme; there are theoretical doubts (as always) but I can't really find a significant doubt. I would err on the side that deGarve owns the copyrights and the heirs should license them. If someone else claims copyright and brings forth further information we could deal with it then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- If someone borrows your camera to do their own photography, of course. When it comes to a passerby who can't ever prove ownership, I would disagree -- that is different. Secondly, if someone takes a photo with your camera but with your involvement (i.e. choosing angles etc.), then that person can be a co-author. I thought that had been settled years ago. If he asked for a photo of himself, it's arguable deGarve was at least a co-author. It's not necessarily who presses the shutter, but who makes the decision on what to photograph, angle, framing, etc. I don't think it's worth getting into the weeds and technicalities in situations like this -- it may be too much to assume PD status but I would assume good faith and let the heirs give a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jim. User:Rejoy2003 has uploaded File:Viresh Borkar.jpg, which is a duplicate of the deleted File:Shri-Viresh-Borkar.jpg (confirmation[1]). You deleted the original file following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shri-Viresh-Borkar.jpg. The copyright policy of the source website[2] has not resolved the issue, and has the phrase "subject to the material being reproduced accurately". Will you delete the file, or should I raise a deletion request? The file page uses User:Ravensfire/Goa-Govt – should this be revised or deleted? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Done Thank you. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete[edit]
@Jameslwoodward Please delete image File:Keratuan Darah Putih dalam Aksara Lampung.png, because of an error in the script and I will update it Daeng Hanif (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Krd chose not to delete it. I suggest you ask them to do this. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Simultaneous publication[edit]
Hi. Regarding your closing statement in this discussion. Simultaneous publication (defined specifically as within 30 days) in two or more Berne signatory countries triggers special rules about what country is to be considered the country of origin for the purposes of determining copyright protection (see COM:L). In practice, this means that works published simultaneously in the UK and the US (the most common case were I run across this) are considered US works for copyright purposes and thus for Commons policy purposes it only needs to be public domain in the US. That 30-day limit is pretty darn specific (bright-line legislation), which was why I emphasised that there was no positive evidence that publication happened within that window (although I still think the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a risk-based assessment under COM:PRP in this case). But, anyways, simultaneous UK/US publication is at least as common as missing or defective notices and failure to renew copyright for books and other written works (which is what I mainly see coming from English Wikisource). Xover (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The question of simultaneous publication is irrelevant. COM:L states that a work is acceptable in Commons if it is PD in both the country of origin and the USA. It also says, "The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." [emphasis added]. In a case such as this, where the book was written in the UK with the subject matter being entirely UK people, it seems to me clear that the country of origin is clearly the UK despite the fact that it may have actually been published in the US within thirty days of UK publication. Even granting that copyright rules are sometimes illogical, this seems to me to be very clear. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- In the specific case in that deletion discussion there is doubt about whether it was published in the US within 30 days or not, so for this specific book it's a subjective assessment whether it meets PRP or not.But in the general case, if a book was published simultaneously in the UK and the US the rules in Berne for determining the country of origin come into play. That's why COM:L says "generally" (this is one major exception) and has COM:L#cite_note-1 to clarify. This is directly from the Berne convention Art. 5 (4) (a): (4) The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) …; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection;. The distinction here is that while bibliographically (and common sensically) speaking it is a UK work, in copyright terms its country of origin is the US. I'll grant you this is the sort of stuff that only makes sense to lawyers, but then that does tend to describe most of copyright law. Xover (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)