File:Churchill and Brendan Bracken 1940.jpg
Churchill_and_Brendan_Bracken_1940.jpg (620 × 330 pixel, dimensione del file: 25 KB, tipo MIME: image/jpeg)
Questo file e la sua pagina di descrizione (discussione · modifica) si trovano su Wikimedia Commons (?) |
Questo file è stato proposto per la cancellazione in data 10 marzo 2024. Per discuterne, per favore vai qui.
Non rimuovere questo avviso prima che la richiesta di cancellazione sia stata chiusa. Motivo per la richiesta di cancellazione: This is a tricky one that I am not certain requires deletion. However, I brought it here for discussion to talk through the various issues. The image has been uploaded with a licence claiming authorship by the US Government but the source link is a direct link to an unrelated jpg file on the Irish Times website. The uploader's talk page is filled with copyvio notices and previous discussions mention that they have given direct links to files on other uploads, which rob the uploads of context. I don't think we can count the uploader as reliable here. Next, a search online for this colour photo finds a larger black and white version at Getty Images. Our colour version shows the subjects in the same position, with the same shadows and facial expressions. I suspect this colour version is a crop from the same source negative as the Getty Image. The Getty Image is from their Hulton Archive, credited to Central Press and claimed to still be in copyright; the photographer is named as "Stringer" (a term for a freelance photographer). It is unclear whether the identity of "Stringer" is known in this case. Central Press is likely a reference to en:Central News Agency (London); "Central News" appears to be a popular and generic name for journalism businesses (there are 9 current companies registered in the UK with that name) so it is hard to sift out what relates to which organisation, but I think this record at National Archives showing the 19th century business shutting down in 1980 is the right one. Assuming that the London based Central News is the right one, it operated in a similar manner to Reuters in that it collected stories and sold them to media outlets. That suggests there could be multiple countries of first publication (as determined through the Berne convention's rule of simultaneous publication). So we have a possibly anonymous creation (though there may be a record of who "Stringer" was in this case) with unclear place of first publication (or simultaneous publication). A further complication is whether this is a contemporary colour photograph that was also produced in black and white (for the version at Getty Images) or if it is a more recent colourisation. If it has been colourised, that would have produced a derivative copyright. If we assume that the original work is anonymous, that it was taken using colour film (no derivative colourisation) and that it was first published in the UK in 1940, I think the UK copyright would have been expected to have expired after 50 years in 1990. However, I think the copyright period for anonymous works was extended to 70 years in 1989 (though I am not sure which side this image landed on - did it expire before the 20 year extension came into effect?). However, the UK copyright for a published anonymous work should have expired by 2010, at the latest. US copyright is more tricky; was it simultaneuously published in the US within 30 days of original publication? If so, then normal US copyright rules apply. If not, then the copyright may have been restored if the image wasn't PD in the UK in 1996. Any thoughts on this one?
| |||
Clicca qui per visualizzare ulteriori istruzioni
Se questo template è stato inserito perché hai cliccato "Nominate for deletion" nel menu a sinistra, per favore assicurati di aver creato tutte le pagine necessarie. Se non vengono create entro pochi minuti, o se hai aggiunto questo template manualmente, dovresti completare i seguenti passi
{{subst:delete2|image=File:Churchill and Brendan Bracken 1940.jpg|reason=This is a tricky one that I am not certain requires deletion. However, I brought it here for discussion to talk through the various issues. The image has been uploaded with a licence claiming authorship by the US Government but the source link is a direct link to an unrelated jpg file on the Irish Times website. The uploader's talk page is filled with copyvio notices and previous discussions mention that they have given direct links to files on other uploads, which rob the uploads of context. I don't think we can count the uploader as reliable here. Next, a search online for this colour photo finds a larger black and white version at Getty Images. Our colour version shows the subjects in the same position, with the same shadows and facial expressions. I suspect this colour version is a crop from the same source negative as the Getty Image. The Getty Image is from their Hulton Archive, credited to Central Press and claimed to still be in copyright; the photographer is named as "Stringer" (a term for a freelance photographer). It is unclear whether the identity of "Stringer" is known in this case. Central Press is likely a reference to en:Central News Agency (London); "Central News" appears to be a popular and generic name for journalism businesses (there are 9 current companies registered in the UK with that name) so it is hard to sift out what relates to which organisation, but I think this record at National Archives showing the 19th century business shutting down in 1980 is the right one. Assuming that the London based Central News is the right one, it operated in a similar manner to Reuters in that it collected stories and sold them to media outlets. That suggests there could be multiple countries of first publication (as determined through the Berne convention's rule of simultaneous publication). So we have a possibly anonymous creation (though there may be a record of who "Stringer" was in this case) with unclear place of first publication (or simultaneous publication). A further complication is whether this is a contemporary colour photograph that was also produced in black and white (for the version at Getty Images) or if it is a more recent colourisation. If it has been colourised, that would have produced a derivative copyright. If we assume that the original work is anonymous, that it was taken using colour film (no derivative colourisation) and that it was first published in the UK in 1940, I think the UK copyright would have been expected to have expired after 50 years in 1990. However, I think the copyright period for anonymous works was extended to 70 years in 1989 (though I am not sure which side this image landed on - did it expire before the 20 year extension came into effect?). However, the UK copyright for a published anonymous work should have expired by 2010, at the latest. US copyright is more tricky; was it simultaneuously published in the US within 30 days of original publication? If so, then normal US copyright rules apply. If not, then the copyright may have been restored if the image wasn't PD in the UK in 1996. Any thoughts on this one?}} ~~~~
Per cancellazioni di massa: Se vuoi proporre per la cancellazione diverse immagini che hanno in comune la stessa proposta di cancellazione, per favore fai una richiesta di massa aggiungendo manualmente {{delete|reason=scrivi la motivazione|subpage=scrivi il nome|year=2024|month=May|day=7}} ad ogni immagine e poi seguendo i passi indicati più sopra. (Aiuto per le cancellazioni di massa). Nota: questo template è per richieste che richiedono discussione su una eventuale cancellazione. Per le cancellazioni immediate, usa {{speedy|motivazione}}.
|
Dettagli
DescrizioneChurchill and Brendan Bracken 1940.jpg |
English: Churchill and Brendan Bracken in 1940 |
Data | |
Fonte | https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2076994.1422011630!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg |
Autore | SconosciutoUnknown author |
Licenza
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse |
Quest'opera è nel pubblico dominio negli Stati Uniti d'America poiché è opera del Governo Federale degli Stati Uniti secondo i termini del titolo 17, capitolo 1, sezione 105 del Codice USA. Vedi anche Copyright per maggiori informazioni.
Nota: la norma si applica solo ad opere prodotte dal governo federale e non dai singoli stati, territori, commonwealth, contee, suddivisioni, municipalità o qualsiasi altra suddivisione degli Stati Uniti. Non si applica inoltre ai francobolli pubblicati dallo United States Postal Service fino al 1978 (vedi 206.02(b) of Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices).
|
||
Questo file è stato identificato come libero da restrizioni conosciute riguardanti le leggi sul copyright, compresi tutti i diritti connessi e vicini. |
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse
Elementi ritratti in questo file
raffigura
11 mag 1940
image/jpeg
84e1efa34a19a05e792d15e3b6b76d20e038583f
25 749 byte
330 pixel
620 pixel
Cronologia del file
Fare clic su un gruppo data/ora per vedere il file come si presentava nel momento indicato.
Data/Ora | Miniatura | Dimensioni | Utente | Commento | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
attuale | 15:58, 3 gen 2018 | 620 × 330 (25 KB) | AngevinKnight | User created page with UploadWizard |
Pagine che usano questo file
La seguente pagina usa questo file:
Utilizzo globale del file
Anche i seguenti wiki usano questo file:
- Usato nelle seguenti pagine di nl.wikipedia.org: