Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Albert Einstein declares his opposition to the atomic bomb.jpg

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.

Where exactly is the proof of non-renewal of this image (or at least evidence of a copyright search ?) Megapixie (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: What evidence do we have that this is even a U.S.-published photograph, let alone that it appeared with a copyright notice then was not renewed? Some sources credit AFP (Agence France-Presse), the 150-year-old French press agency. It could very well be work-for-hire for AFP, taken in a U.S. TV studio but published in Europe. Getty Images is claiming very recent copyrights on this image, but that's probably a bluff. However, this photo appears 3 times in Getty Images archives:
  1. 96g/50/huch/5726/23 (#3318683), photographer "Keystone/Stringer", source "Hulton Archive" — "Einstein Lecture — circa 1955: Mathematical physicist Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) delivers one of his recorded lectures"
  2. 97k/40/huty/6791/rescan1 (#3375195), photographer "Keystone/Stringer", source "Hulton Archive" — "Einstein's Warning — 17th February 1950: An animated Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) warns against the 'general annihilation' which nuclear weapons may cause. He was speaking out for the first time since the decision to proceed wth the H Bomb during the premiere of Mrs Roosevelt's weekly television show."
  3. APP2001012403922 (#51506621), photographer "AFP/Stringer", source "AFP" — "PRINCETON, : German-born Swiss-US physicist Albert Einstein, author of the theory of relativity, declares his opposition to the 'H' bomb and to the arms race between the USA and the USSR in a conference 14 February 1950 in Princeton during a TV broadcast which created a considerable stir in the United States and all over the Western World. (Photo credit should read AFP/AFP/Getty Images)"
So this image could have been first published in France, or in the U.S., or somewhere else. Commons:Licensing#France doesn't mention lack of renewals like the U.S. (It does mention that someone got sued fairly recently for copying a 1934 work, though.) One would assume AFP knows how to retain its copyrights in at least France, which would mean 70 years from 1950, which is 2020. If it was a personal work by Keystone (whoever that is), Getty Images shows images credited to "Keystone" as late as 22nd January 1964, which means that person was still alive, and in France that would mean personal copyright would not expire until at least 50 years from 1964, which is 2014. "Hulton|Archive" is now owned by Getty Images, but was a combination of a UK archive and a US archive, if that means anything. --Closeapple (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Keystone" is another photo agency: [1], Keystone View Company. Apparently an U.S. company. Since the photo was made at Princeton, I think it's reasonable to assume that it is a U.S. work. However, we're still lacking any evidence regarding the non-renewal of its copyright. Lupo 11:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same image is here, but something happened to the lettering "NBC". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The copyright can't belong at the same time to Getty, AFP and AIP Emilio Segre Visual Archives. There are too many copyright claims for my taste. That's usually a strong sign of copyfraud. Yann (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "direct" Getty copyright is probably a fake. However, the photo is from February 1950, and there is no evidence of the original copyright registration whose lapse is claimed by the tag. I'm not familiar with the policy on Commons when an image is clearly within the last 70 years yet has neither evidence of copyright nor evidence of its lapse. --Closeapple (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It's true that one of the aforementioned must be the only one with the copyright and the others are frauds. However the existing license is probably void and there is not sufficient information to declare this a pd image Badseed talk 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]