Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 5

File:Portrait of Mabel Allington Royds by Ernest Lumsden.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

File marked as URAA-restored, but this painting was published in 1911, what makes it PD in US as well. Michalg95 (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikiacc's comment on the licensing explicitly says that "Public domain status in the US depends on the date of publication, not creation". The 1911 date appears to refer to when the painting was created, so unless there's some indication it was published by 1929, the licensing should remain as is. hinnk (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/mark as PD The source of this image indicates the painting was first published in 1911. Even if it were not, copyright extends to death + 70 years. As the author died in 1948, this entered the public domain in 2018. Buffs (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't seem correct. Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks is very clear about this: "Because an artwork is not published by being exhibited, and also neither by being created or sold, one needs to know when reproductions of the artwork (photos, postcards, lithographs, casts of statues, and so on) were first published…For most artworks, a year is usually given, but this is normally the year the work was made, not the year it was published."

  If this work was first published between 1930 and 1977, the copyright term ends 95 years after publication, and if it was first published between 1978 and 2002, the copyright term ends in 2047. The source doesn't give any indication that reproductions of the artwork were made in 1911, so we don't have enough information to treat this as {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}} at this time. hinnk (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The source itself says 1911. If you have evidence otherwise, then please present it. "I think that might be the date it was made and no one ever saw it until it was published later [date not given]". Otherwise, it's clearly PD. You also left out "In the case that an artwork created before 1978 is not published until 2003 or later, it comes into the public domain 70 years after the author's death. However, if it is first published between 1978 and 2002 (inclusive), it will still be copyrighted in the US until the end of 2047." This is pretty clearly the former, not the latter. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't leave out the post-2003 case. That's what {{PD-US-unpublished}} is, and the fact that we have poor information about the publication history was why I recommended against its use. I don't see how we get from "a year is usually given, but this is normally…not the year it was published" to a year in a caption in a WP:BLOGGER article being indicative of publication, and I wouldn't expect this to meet c:COM:PCP. hinnk (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  we don't have enough information to treat this as PD-US-expired or PD-US-unpublished at this time note that {{PD-US-unpublished}} states it's PD if "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions: its author died before 1955..." You can't simultaneously say it was unpublished AND that it was published. We should find out the answer, not just say "it might fall into this category." There's ample evidence the author/her heirs haven't filed for any copyright protections. We cannot base this on "well, there might have been other publications so it could be copyrighted." We have to base this on known facts. If you have evidence, I'll change my !vote in a heartbeat, but I've seen no evidence to the contrary. Tineye, for example, shows no prior publications online. Likewise, the statementIf this work was first published between 1930 and 1977... assumes it was properly copyrighted AND that copyright was maintained. There is no evidence of this. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're again either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I've said. I agree that the portrait has been published. The existence of the Blogspot article is proof of that. What we don't know is the date of first publication. We've narrowed it to a 104-year window, and 73 of those would mean an active U.S. copyright. {{PD-US-expired}} needs evidence that reproduction of the painting happened, which WP:PD says we can't ascertain from the caption alone. We know the painting was published in 2015, but for {{PD-US-unpublished}} to apply we'd need to know it hadn't been published before the date set by the Copyright Term Extension Act. We don't. We don't know who owns it. We don't know anyone who's ever owned it.We should find out the answer, not just say "it might fall into this category." We have to base this on known facts. I'm in total agreement here. And until we find out, we don't guess a license. The precautionary principle directs us to resolve uncertainty by assuming non-free status.

  Everything about filing for copyright protection is a non sequitur. British authors didn't need to file there. That's the point of URAA restoration. That's why the Hirtle chart lists the same copyright terms (under "Works Published Abroad Before 1978"/"Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978") for works that were published with or without compliance. Again, we'd need evidence that one of the PD-US licenses applies. Arguments thatthe author/[his] heirs haven't filed for any copyright protections go against Commons' aims. hinnk (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're misunderstanding my statements. Ok, it's been published elsewhere. You contend that, because we don't know where else it's been published, we must therefore assume it might be copyrighted. The problem is that you cannot prove that negative. We can prove when it was published, but we cannot prove when it wasn't. We CAN prove it was not registered for a copyright because such copyright wasn't registered in the US or elsewhere, near as I can tell. Likewise we have the date of death of the author. For THAT reason, in combination with copyright requirements (like registering the copyright and time since the death of the author in the US) it is in the public domain. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can prove when it was published, but we cannot prove when it wasn't. I mean, whichever way you slice it, we haven't done it. That's the trouble working with images with insufficient source information.

  Anyway, I've been trying to figure out where it came from, and it looks like the blog got the image from this version, available on Pinterest, and cropped it. Note the identical tilt, the shadows around the edge of the frame, and the frame itself at the bottom right. The pin mentions the Aberdeen Art Gallery, which does hold some of Lumsden's works. Unfortunately, none of the works listed are from 1911 and none of the titles seem to match.

  Looking at the acquisition data, their works came mostly from private collections and were acquired between 1917 and 1988. So if it's part of their collection, the most likely U.S. statuses would be {{PD-US-expired-abroad|pdsource=yes}} or {{PD-URAA}} and we probably wouldn't be looking at {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Also, they've got a neat open access program for releasing CC0 images of some of their collection. Seems like the best chance at getting actual provenance info on this painting would be to reach out to them and see what they say. hinnk (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Commons Unless we have specific evidence that this painting was completely private past 1929, the current evidence would suggest that this is public domain in the US and the UK. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]