Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Roger Pic

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:Roger Pic[edit]

All the files provide the same license information: conditions spécifiques d'utilisation (sous convention BnF-ADM-2012-046109-01). That is, restricted use (convention BnF-ADM-2012-046109-01). As the photographer died far less that 70 years ago, I can't see any reason to believe they have a compatible license

Discasto talk 21:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I've read it and seems to be totally different. In fact, you stated I was aware of these details, and given the facts that the BNF acquired the copyright, and that the images are still available under a "domaine public" mention on Europeana, I would keep these, unless we have more information from the BNF or the photograher saying the opposite. You have a perfectly clear statement of the BNF saying the opposite. Be coherent, please. --Discasto talk 21:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Umm... I'm seeing a lot of This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Roger Pic. I'm a bit of a novice, but poking around, I'm not really seeing where the conditions spécifiques d'utilisation is coming from. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Yeah, per Yann. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Ain't no backsies with the public domain. TimothyJosephWood 21:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Even it that story is true, although a CC license cannot not withdrawn, a generic public domain statement can. If they want to make money, it's its right as it's the owner of the right. So, if they have decided to revoke a generic public domain statement, we cannot use the conditions we use for CC licenses. Am I missing anything? --Discasto talk 21:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They can't revoke a public domain anymore than a CC license. The issue is more for reusers, and to keep a track of the original license. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course they can. A CC license has a legal binding. A generic "public domain" statement hasn't. --Discasto talk 21:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Creative Commons did not invent the concepts of licences, contracts, public domain and declarations of release. It all existed before Creative Commons and its texts existed. A license, contract or declaration does not need to have anything to do with Creative Commons to be binding. Commons has several tags to indicate such releases: PD-self, PD-author, PD-heir, PD-because, etc. One can't withdraw something they have released to the public domain. The irrevocability is an essential aspect of the notion of release to the public domain. Otherwise, a release to the public domain wouldn't make sense. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically this. Saying of someone who releases an image into the public domain it's its right as it's the owner of the right doesn't make any sense. If it is released into PD then the owner of the right is the public. This is pretty well covered at length in the Daniel Cande discussion. As is also pretty well stated there, if the org decided to "change" their license, we're indifferent, and the change is meaningless, because there was already a binding agreement in place with "the public". They can't unilaterally alter that agreement, and the only way "the public" can consent to modifying it is through legislation.
If there was a clerical error, and the PD release was never valid to begin with, because the entity that did so wasn't legally allowed to, then that's a problem, but if it was ever in the public domain then it is in the public domain in perpetuity. TimothyJosephWood 13:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. They have changed their statement from domaine public to Conditions spécifiques d'utilisation (sous convention BnF-ADM-2012-046109-01). But they were in the public domain before. -- Geagea (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. The patrimonial rights to the original works were released to the public domain by the copyright holder, the BNF. Per the very notion of it, a release to the public domain is definitive. Someone may try to say that it was a mistake by an employee. But the BNF left it like that for many years and there was nothing that could indicate to the public that it would have been a mistake. A different issue may be that the files on Commons were not reviewed by license reviewers. If there was only the word of the uploader without any other trace, maybe we would feel we have to delete. However, in the case of the photographs of Roger Pic, there are many regular users of Commons that have visited the Roger Pic section of the BNF website in the past years and who can testify that the Roger Pic photographs there were indeed indicated to be public domain. Also, evidence of their public domain description can still be seen on the website Europeana. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment This is a legal issue, and the idea that we can simply vote one way or another is preposterous. Comments such as "Ain't no backsies with the public domain" should be read as "I have no idea how the law works", unless they are accompanied by a reliable source of legal doctrine that covers such 'backsies'. The only user commenting above who seems to respect the law is Discasto, the rest are simply weighing in with their two cents, which ought to count for nothing. A little googling to see if it is possible for a copyright holder to revoke or terminate PD licensing tells me that it may indeed be possible, and that my understanding of such legal matters, and the apparent understanding of the commenters here, is woefully inadequate. I would suggest that any non-experts either back out of the discussion or provide substantial proof that they know what they are talking about. You cannot vote to break the law, and even if the vote was unanimous it would be entirely without meaning. nagualdesign 23:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The Fonds Pic gathers over 40,000 photos given in 1963 and 1982 to two departments of BNF. The photos were donated "together with their rights". Hence BNF is the copyright owner of these photographs. Now, while keeping its copyright on the original works, BNF has decided to release digital copies of these photographs through Gallica and has assessed these digital objects to be in the public domain, through a public domain mark included in the meta data of the files transmitted to Europeana. This is not a case of CC0 licensing (a tool BNF declines to use) but of a public domain mark assessed by an institution which is at the same time the curator and the owner of these photographs. In any case, the convention BnF-ADM-2012-046109-01, a document to which BNF refuses to give access, cannot have been entered with Pic who died in 2001 and had only kept his moral right on the donated photographs. I would suggest to change the template {{PD-author}} which is misleading to an adaptation (Cande's situation is different from that of Pic) of {{PD-because}} as I have done here. — Racconish ☎ 08:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About your fourth sentence, it's the opposite: In the specific notices describing the images on Gallica, the BNF states the copyright status of the original works. Then, in the terms for reuse of the contents of the Gallica website [1], the BNF claims control over the digital copies present on the website and it forbids commercial reuse of those digital copies without its authorization. This sort of attempt (which may or may not be valid or opposable to reusers in France) to restrict the reuse of public domain works is usually considered irrelevant to Commons, per policy. Besides, as you judiciously mentioned, the BNF has also chosen to offer its files under a statement of public domain without restrictions on Europeana. Europeana has a strong policy to uphold the public domain [2] and it asks its contributing institutions to state clearly the status of the images they contribute. By choosing to contribute the images as unrestricted public domain (instead of restricted, e.g. NoC-OKLR), the BNF reaffirmed that the originals are in the public domain (as already stated on Gallica before the recent change) and effectively renounced to place restrictions on the reuse of those digital copies. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: Regardless of BNf's terms of use, I was referring to the public domain mark certification at Europana. I think we all agree that if a digital object is in the public domain, its use cannot also be limited to non commercial purpose. I beg to differ with you on one aspect : the public domain mark at Europeana relates only to the digital derivative available at Gallica and Europeana. — Racconish ☎ 13:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I wrote to WMF Legal, as this raises a more general issue: what the legal validity of license review when the license changes at the source? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann, just be careful in your wording. We are dealing here with public domain marks, not Commons licenses. Although a public domain mark is a "certification" [3], particularly in the context of Europeana and even more so in the case of copyrights owned by the certifying institution, it is not a license stricto sensu. — Racconish ☎ 10:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Answer from WMF Legal: In this case, the Wikimedia Foundation will not take action to remove the images regardless of what community decision is reached. They will evaluate a DMCA from the BNF if it comes according to the data provided by the BNF (proof that the files are under a copyright). If the WMF received a DMCA from the BNF, we would look at the specific images or documents identified in the DMCA and attempt to determine if they were subject to a copyright law enforceable in the United States. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment An obvious question arises. Should we stick to the already uploaded images or claim that, provided that public domain was assigned for a while, any image we can prove it was releases is still eligible to be uploaded to commons? --Discasto talk 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was also wondering about that. But I don't think we should discuss this here, but on COM:VPC. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The key criterion is the Public Domain Mark at Europeana. — Racconish ☎ 17:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: The files were released into the public domain several years ago. Even if the copyright owner changed his mind, there are still in the public domain. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Roger_Pic&oldid=336235831"