Commons:Deletion requests/File:Judea declares war on germany.png

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.

File:Judea declares war on germany.png

fake license Pessimist (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This newspaper was issued in 1934. According to the Law of the United States: newspapers published between 1925 and 1964 are not subject to copyright, unless it was explicitly stated in the issue of a newspaper itself - that reproduction is prohibited; even if it was specified, it must be legally updated within 28 years, otherwise it is invalidated. A complete list of copyrighted works of that period can be found here https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/to1949.html

According to the Law of the United Kingdom, a license to partially use of a newspaper is not required Yeeeep nooope (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Факта подлога лицензии это не отменяет. This does not cancel the fact of forgery of a license. Lesless (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Law of the United States all newspapers published between 1925 and 1964 have Public Domain Dedication, unless it was explicitly stated in the issue of a newspaper itself - that reproduction is prohibited; even if it was specified, it must be legally updated within 28 years, otherwise it is invalidated. A complete list of copyrighted works of that period can be found here https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/to1949.html

You can read the "U.S. Copyright Office’s Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work" for a better understanding:

Published Between 1923 and 1963

An investigation will need to take place to determine the copyright status of works published between 1923 and 1963, since these publications may or may not be protected under copyright. During this time period, all publications containing a copyright notice were required to renew their copyright 28 years from the date of publication in order to protect all past issues and guarantee copyright protection for the following 67 years (for a total of 95 years from date of publication).

For example, a newspaper first published in 1920 would have to renew copyright in 1948 in order to keep all past issues protected and to remain protected until 2015. However, if the paper did not renew copyright in 1948, all past issues would fall into the Public Domain and typically most future issues. If a publication was printed without a copyright notice during this time, it is also now in the Public Domain.

According to the Law of the United Kingdom, a license to partially use of a newspaper is not required.

Copyright law of the United Kingdom, chapter "Fair dealing and other exceptions":

s30.—Criticism, review, quotation and news reporting Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of quotation, criticism or review, or news reporting does not infringe copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work has been made available to the public.

from the page https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work

According to the Creative Commons classification, Public Domain Dedication is equal to Creative Commons Zero (CC0) Yeeeep nooope (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I has changed it to PD-UK-unknown, which suits it better, so the problem resolved Yeeeep nooope (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, here's the photo of front page of an issue of The Times magazine from 1940 under same license, which is used in a very popular article ('The Times' article) --Yeeeep nooope (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: since this nomination the licence has been changed to {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Ww2censor (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before any other consideration about copyright status, I want to see this file’s original source url at the Internet Archive (given as source but not specified) or any other trustworth archive of the Daily Express. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, mate: Yeeeep nooope (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the Law of the United Kingdom, a license to partially use of a newspaper is not required". This is doubtful. Where did you see that? These articles have an author. PD-UK-unknown may or may not be valid. And since it is a British newspaper, URAA may applies. Yann (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Law of UK is allowing fair usage:

https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained

The concept of fair usage exists within UK copyright law; commonly referred to as fair dealing, or free use and fair practice. It’s a framework designed to allow the lawful use or reproduction of work without having to seek permission from the copyright owner(s) or creator(s) or infringing their interest.

Fair dealing law is not only applicable to text-based works; it applies to musical, dramatic, artistic, literary and typographical works too. However, it does not cover the copyright of printed music.

As an exception to British copyright law, fair dealing is governed by Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which outlines three instance where fair dealing is a legitimate defence:

If the use is for the purposes of research or private study;

If it is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation;

Where it is utilised for the purposes of reporting current events (this does not apply to photographs)

A statutory definition for fair dealing does not exist; it will always be a matter of fact, degree and interpretation in every fair dealing case. Nor is there a percentage or quantitative measure to determine fair dealing. The Intellectual Property Office lists the key factors used to determine the validity of whether a particular dealing with a work is fair as follows:

Has the use of the work impacted negatively on the market for the original work? If the creator or owner has lost potential revenue through the re-use of their work, it is not likely to be fair.

Was it reasonable and necessary to use the amount of work that was taken?

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 also outlines the potential fair dealing defences that permit the use of copyright works without permission from the author(s) or creator(s) under UK copyright law:

(...)

Fair dealing for quotation, critique or review

The Society of Authors advises that limited citations of a work are allowed if used solely for the purpose of critique or review under the following conditions:

Providing the work is publicly available

The source of the work is acknowledged

The quoted material is supplemented by topical discussion or assessment

The extent of material quoted is considered an acceptable amount for the purpose of review

Second, the the Law of UK have the concept of Public Domain:

https://www.digitisingmorgan.org/uploads/BN4-newspaper%20articles_DigiMorgan.pdf

Historically, newspaper articles were often published without authorial attribution or a relevant byline, and whether the author of a work is known or remains unknown may significantly impact the duration of protection a work enjoys under the copyright regime. The CDPA states that if a work is of unknown authorship then copyright expires 70 years after the end of the year in which the work was created (s.12(3)(a)). However, if the work is made available to the public during that 70 year period, copyright expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first made available (s.12(3)(b)). For newspaper articles and other similar material, the year of creation and year of first publication are likely to be one and the same. What matters though is that, once published, the term of protection expires 70 years from the end of the year of publication. This means that any work of unknown authorship first published on or before 31 December 1946 can from 1 January 2017 be considered to be in the public domain. That is, the copyright term in the article will expire 70 years from the end of the year in which the work was first published. Moreover, with every passing year more previously published work will enter the public domain. So, if you are reading this commentary after 2017, then the relevant date to bear in mind (in relation to published works of unknown authorship) is not 31 December 1946, but 31 December 1947. Anything published on or before this date can be regarded as now in the public domain.

And third, the the Law of UK have the concept of Insubstantial copies:

https://lawdit.co.uk/readingroom/what-amounts-to-copying-a-substantial-part-of-a-work

Section 16(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the Act”) states “references in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it – (a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it.

If given image comes under any of these rules, then it considered copyright free, to the reasons of fair usage, being the public domain, or considered an insubstantial copy, therefore, as long as this image fits into all of that three categories - it must be considered as copyright free.

Moreover, if we count this case of image usage, as copyright free, then surely, discussed image must be also, because it's same case, UK newspaper issued long before 1953 (current date of any work becoming a public domain), the photocopy of a front page. Yeeeep nooope (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Так это fair usage. Викисклад не принимает FU. Lesless (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First: stick to the english language, this is an english speaking part of wikipedia, so we all can discuss image, not only russian speaking people. I'll translate your phrase, but, please, refrain in the future from speaking on any language aside from english here. So, the user said: This is 'Fair Usage' and wiki commons are not accepting files with Fair Usage license - which is obviously a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-New-York-Times-March-26-2018.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thetimespapercover.jpg Yeeeep nooope (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org is not commons.wikimedia.org.

Wikimedia Commons does not use FU. Pessimist (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if this file will be not accepted under PD-UK-unknown license, then I will proceed to request for deletion all photocopies of british newspapers issued before 1953, from wiki commons, like this one. Otherwise we need to accept this file also, because they have absolutely same nature and an 'inquiring of authorship' wasn't proceeded for any of them. That would be the only fair option in this case. Yeeeep nooope (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant statement from the uploader's arguments above is the one related to the public domain aspect, since "fair use" arguments are totally irrelevant here. The public domain argument is however entirely distorted, as the source referred to by the uploader clearly demonstrates. In order to trigger the "no known author" exception, ‘reasonable enquiry’ should be made to determine ownership. According to the principles set out in Section 3.2 of the source, "For newspaper and magazine articles published without a named author, a reasonable inquiry must surely involve approaching the relevant (or parent) newspaper to see if they can provide details of authorship", which has not been shown to be the case here. Accordingly, in the absence of such inquiry, we are to presume that the copyright expires, and the article enters public domain, 70 years after the author's death, and no evidence has been brough to support the claim that this is the case here, certainly not for all the articles included in the copied segement of the newspaper. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fair use" arguments are totally irrelevant here - wouldn't you mind to elaborate how they are irrelevant?

"For newspaper and magazine articles published without a named author, a reasonable inquiry must surely involve approaching the relevant (or parent) newspaper to see if they can provide details of authorship" - then wouldn't you gladly make it for us? Because until you'd do it an author would remain legally unknown, since nobody has claimed rights yet

Also what about this case? [ File:Frontpage weekly magazine "The Times" May 15 1940, With headline "The Old prime minister and the new".jpg ] ? If we don't consider an author as unknown then it must be deleted also, since UK has left EU and now this image's copyright is in the jurisdiction of The Law of The United Kingdom. Also, then all images taken from british newspapers before 1953 must be deleted if enquiry of ownership wasn't accomplished. Wouldn't you be so glad and do it for us? Could you mark all such files as requested for deleting? Yeeeep nooope (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to engage in a discussion in this tone. Regarding fair use - read the rules. Regarding public domain - as an uploader, you are under the obligation to substantiate your public domain assertion, not the other way around. You have evidently failed to do so, and no one has to waste his own time to remedy your obvious failure and blatant misrepresentations. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clap clap clap, nice speech. BTW, what about rules that are ain't allow personal attacks? Nevermind. Nevertheless, disregarding your personal preferences in tonal character of disucssions, you didn't provide any evidence of an irrelevance of a fair use license, as well as you didn't provide any evidences of an existence of an author's copyright, as well as you didn't explained what we gonna do with other photocopies of british newspapers issued before 1953 and uploaded under Template:PD-UK-unknown license wihtout inquiring of authorship. Therefore I consider your complaints as void. Yeeeep nooope (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have said, fair use isn't compatible with Commons. Also, I don't see how PD-UK-unknown would at all be relevant a news paper article since they aren't photographs. Nor are they artistic or literary works. Maybe literary works, but if so it's sort of a stretch in this case. Although it might be worth asking what exactly makes something a "literary work" on the village pump, but that's an issue for another time. Same goes for the suggestion that every other image of a newspaper hosted on Commons should be deleted if this one is, which is really just an other stuff exists arguement. Go ahead and nominate the other images for deletion. Know one cares and they have nothing to do with this. Like we can't delete an instance of COPYVIO unless every other instance of it is deleted first. Right. BTW I found out about this DR because Yeeeep nooope left a message on my talk page asking me to vote keep on it. Take that how you will, but hopefully at least they won't do it again now that I did the exact opposite lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PD-UK-unknown is relevant to any article in any UK newspaper issued before 1953, according to Law of the United Kingdom:

The CDPA states that if a work is of unknown authorship then copyright expires 70 years after the end of the year in which the work was created (s.12(3)(a)) Yeeeep nooope (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in favour of Keep I am here after the uploader seeked my opinion but I also did a quick search and found this: "if the article is unsigned, copyright expires 70 years after publication; if the article is signed, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author." As there are no names mentioned on the different news on the front page, I would say we consider them unsigned and keep this photo. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's multiple articles and the bottom half of the paper is cropped out. Not to mention there's no images of the rest of the articles either. So there isn't really a way to tell if they signed or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but reupload with the second page to show the full (unsigned) article. --Iketsi (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This user is wasting everybody’s time with unnecessary walls of text, irrelevant tangents, bratty behaviour, and patent inability to understand the basics of COM:L. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how's that related to an actual issue? You vote couldn't be count if it based just on "too many text to read". And this text was written as an answer to some nonsense written by other users, not because I like to write lots of text. What's about the basics of Commons:Licensing, then if was approved by few users that license is correct. Yeeeep nooope (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The license is correct, and newspapers publish the byline at the top of the article, not the bottom. In the 1930s newspapers did not give bylines to staff reporters. The only bylines would be for columnists and opinion pieces. --RAN (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The file is in public domain in UK only. I looked all articles mentioned in main page and none of them had identifiable author, so they are all PD-UK-unknown without exception. If there are words "A full report ... appears on pages three and fourteen", then I looked those pages as well – I confirm anonymous publication. But every file in Commons must be free both in UK and US. The file was copyrighted in UK 70 years from publication, that means until 2004. That means: it was copyrighted in UK on URAA date in 1996 and therefore US demand 95 years from publication, which will pass in 2029. Taivo (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Taivo's excellent review and summary. Please, add this file to the category for undeletion in 2029. --

Ooligan (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong: according to the URAA if the subject was under the copyright in 1996 then its copyright would be regulated according to The Law of United States, hence:

Any newspaper published after 1925 and prior to 1964 has a strong probability of being in the public domain. If it is, it may be digitized and brought online without requiring any permissions.
- To be protected by copyright a paper published between these years was required to include a printed copyright notice within the paper itself. If there is no notice, the paper is not copyrighted.
- If notice was published, copyright expired after 28 years, unless a renewal was requested. A convenient online tool through which you can determine if a renewal was requested is http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/.
Any newspaper published before 1978 may be in the public domain. If it is, it may be digitized and brought online without requiring any permissions.
- Prior to 1978, to obtain copyright a newspaper was required to publish a copyright notice in the newspaper in order to obtain copyright. Beginning in 1964, renewal was automatic.
Newspapers published after 1977 are copyrighted. Permission of the copyright holder is required to digitize and bring such a paper online.
- After 1977, copyright was automatically granted upon publication, with or without written notice.

To be valid, a copyright notice had to be placed in every newspaper issue for which it is claimed “either upon the title page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the title heading.” If it didn't appear in one of those locations, it isn't valid. Most newspapers published before 1964 are in the public domain. Even if copyright notice was issued in 1923-1964 and then copyright was not renewed - then it is in the public domain.

For more information:

https://everybodyslibraries.com/2016/07/15/mid-20th-century-newspapers-minding-the-copyrights/

So, according to the Law of United States, this article is in public domain in USA because it was published before 1978 without copyright notice Yeeeep nooope (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. The articles and photographs may be in the PD in the UK, but since they were still copyrighted there in 1996, the URAA restored their US copyright (without the need to have observed formalities like a copyright notice etc., the URAA treated those works as if all formalities had been observed). --Rosenzweig τ 08:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]