Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Suzanne Valadon

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.

Files in Category:Paintings by Suzanne Valadon

Post-1925 paintings: probably not public domain in the U.S.A. (Category:Suzanne Valadon). Perhaps some COM:FOPs.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep French painter Valandon died in 1938, 82 years ago... ----Benoît (d) 12:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benoît Prieur: And? Have you read the warning at Category:Suzanne Valadon? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these are fine and no warning is needed. Why destroy much of what Wikipedia has on Valadon's work? If deleted please first transfer them to English Wikipedia, where they would be safe (things like this is why I don't trust Commons to be a depository of Wikipedia content). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The works of Suzanne Valadon are in the public domain in their country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer (since 1 January 2009). Coldcreation (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The URAA tag was added to Category:Suzanne Valadon on 2 January 2013 by user Dcoetzee without justification. User:Dcoetzee has since been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites. At 03:21, 8 October 2014 User:GorillaWarfare globally blocked Dcoetzee with an expiration time of indefinite. Coldcreation (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the above reasons Wmpearl (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete whatsoever. AshFriday (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I invite the participants of this DR to read COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law and COM:L#Uruguay Round Agreements Act. URAA is a contentious issue, but we can't ignore US law just because it's inconvenient. Also see COM:HIRTLE for information on when the paintings will become public domain in the US. In most cases, it will be 95 years after publication, unless it can be shown they were simultaneously (within 30 days) published in the US and copyright was not renewed or no copyright notice was given. clpo13_(talk) 03:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clpo13: Pourquoi une œuvre peinte devrait être considérée dé-facto comme une œuvre éditée? -> sans preuve du contraire, je pars du principe que ces tableaux "français" n’ont jamais été publiées aux états-unis. « Works originally published in the US after 2002 (with or without copyright notice or registration) are protected until 70 years after the author's death (70 years p.m.a.) ». Est-ce que ce n'est pas au demandeur de la suppression de démontrer que des publications existent? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S. DÉNIEL: In fact it's very simple. You know that Commons images must be public domain both in the source country (here, France) and in the U.S.A (where the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located). Then pre-1925 paintings are public domain in the U.S.A.; 1925 or more recent ones (those which are listed here) are not yet and won't be before 2021 (1925+95 full years). Add 95 to the dates which appears problematic to you and you will get the public domain date. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel: Non, le copyright américain est compliqué. Vous assimilez une date de création a une date de publication. En droit américain ça n’est pas la même chose. Voir là : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Unpublished_works. Citation : the 1924 date does not apply to unpublished works. In short: Artworks are likely to remain unpublished long after their creation date. A date of publication must be ascertained to establish PD status. Another important class of possible unpublished works are artworks, in particular paintings. 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. Si vous pensez que ces œuvres ont été publié avant 1978 merci d’en apporter la preuve. Merci de m’indiquer en quoi cette requête concerne COM:FOPs? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S. DÉNIEL: So you are saying that date of publication (not exhibition) shall be ascertained to establish PD status. That's changes nothing since the rationale for the deletion was that these files were very unlikely to be PD in the U.S.A. The freedom of panorama concern photos of painting exhibited in the U.S.A., like the 3 at the MET and the 2 at SanDiego MoA. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

« The freedom of panorama concern photos of painting exhibited in the U.S.A. » no it doesn't, see Commons:Freedom of panorama/Americas#United States of America. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel: Je ne comprends pas cette requête sur plusieurs images. S'agissant de droit de publication on doit tenir compte de la première date de publication pour chaque image. Vous ne confondez pas date de création et date de publication ? droit d'auteur et droit de l'édition? Faut-il que l'on place un PD-US-unpublished sur toutes nos publications pour avoir la paix? j’aimerais aussi que vous m’expliquiez ce que la liberté de panorama vient faire dans cette demande? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright rules based on the death of the author assume the work to have been published during the author's lifetime. (Source). Coldcreation (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, almost everything is wrong with @Patrick Rogel: rationale, no valid reason to delete. Clearly PD in France (70 pma), in USA (70 pma for unpublished works + even if considered published, there is no sign of copyright notice so « public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities » see COM:HIRTLE) and in Czech Republic (70 pma + most likely FOP). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON: the lack of copyright notice is only meaningful if the work was published in the US within 30 days of being published abroad. For works solely published abroad, COM:HIRTLE shows a 95 year copyright term (see the section titled "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", sub-section "Works Published Abroad Before 1978", date range 1925 to 1977, where the conditions are "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date". This does hinge on the publication year, however, which, as shown above, may not be the same year as creation or even exhibition. clpo13_(talk) 17:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clpo13: Sure, it appears I'm not as smart as @VIGNERON: regarding URAA but doesn't it mean that works by Valadon should have been PD in France in 1996 and that, in every other case, PD is earliest 2021? Besides I've just followed what was written in Category:Suzanne Valadon: if someone thinks it's "all wrong" please put it on deletion. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Update: {{URAA artist}} has been deleted by Benoît Prieur . @Benoît Prieur: may you put it back please and eventually launch a regular DR? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel: the argument is that the paintings were never published (see COM:PUB, which notes the distinction between publication and exhibition), so URAA doesn't come into play. According to the chart at COM:HIRTLE, works with a known author that have never been published, or were published in the US after 2002, have a copyright term of the author's life plus 70. clpo13_(talk) 17:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel and Clpo13: well, TBH, US copyright is painfully complicated (especially for paintings). « Works First Published Outside the U.S. » maybe we are in this case but there is no proof these works where ever published anywhere, at least in the meaning of US law (see the footnotes of the up-to-date Hirtle chart, including but not limited to footnote 6). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Idem --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'd like to thank S. DÉNIEL and VIGNERON for bringing up the caveat that public exhibition does not mean publication (except in the US before 1978, see COM:PACUSA), which was something I was not previously aware of. For those interested, COM:PUB is the page to reference. While there's still a chance that some of these paintings were published (in that copies were made and distributed), unless that can be shown conclusively, I think it's probably okay to keep these files. The lack of conclusive evidence that they weren't published is why my keep vote is weak, and I wouldn't oppose deletion per COM:PCP. Whatever the case, the copyright tags must be updated to include {{PD-US-unpublished}}, or {{PD-old-70}} with a note about the publication status. I notice at least one of these files falsely uses {{PD-US-expired}} and another only has the photographer's Creative Commons license, which should be amended to use {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, per COM:ART. clpo13_(talk) 17:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]