User talk:Clindberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Tennessee

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11
Threads older than 30 days days may be archived.

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Hi Carl, What do you think about the licenses for these images, i.e. File:Shells, 1927, by Edward Weston.jpg and others here: Category:Photographs by Edward Weston? We don't have evidence of publication before 1929, but seeing what the source says, it was certainly published without a notice, and evidently the copyright wasn't renewed. Evidence of lack of notice can also be seen here: File:Nude (Charis, Santa Monica), v2.jpg. Could you please confirm that if at least one copy was published without a notice, that is sufficient for the work to be in the public domain. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only a "relative few" copies were distributed without notice, copyright was not lost. I think court rulings over that have been in the 1 to 2 percent range. If he was selling copies at the time (sounds like early prints of that "Shells" one do exist), then they were published. That particular copy sounds like it was not sold by the artist until the 1950s, so lack of notice on that one would not have mattered until then, if ever. For things like File:Nude (Charis, Santa Monica), v2.jpg, not sure. The original photo was from 1936, so could not have been published before 1929. That particular print was made by his son posthumously, so well after 1958. It sounds like there was an auction of many of that type of print in 2014, per the {{Cole Weston}} article, so if this was one of those, the lack of notice on that particular copy means nothing. But certainly Weston's works should have been published, so if there are no renewal records, they would be OK. That is probably the easiest case to make, but I have not done any copyright searches. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I have searched for copyright renewals for artworks from 1958 to 1966 (covering works from 1930 to 1938), and I have found only one so far, by ShawBarton, Inc., it seems about a reproduction made by his son. I have documented that in Category:Photographs by Edward Weston. It is not clear to me what this renewal is for, as I can't find any artwork called Roar of the sea, Point Lobos. There was an exhibition in 1932 in SF (cf. Group f/64), but I can't find a catalog, or even list of the exhibited artworks. Any idea? Yann (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Shaw Barton made calendars.[1] They have a ton of registrations there, all of which say they were color reproductions. Per Cole Weston, it seems he was the color photographer (and specifically took photos of that area of California), while Edward Weston used black and white. So, that is likely a Cole Weston photograph used on a calendar, possibly as a work for hire. Not an Edward Weston photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2023.

Round 2 will end at 28 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

If you have already voted for Round 2, please ignore this message.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What do you think about the possibility to restoring this file, i.e. to find a lack of copyright renewal? This is the image. Yann (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. At the time of the DR, there was no online way to check for renewals. There now is. The question is what to search for -- what could that have been published in, or who would the copyright owners be, and could that have been renewed. It's a provenance question now. The fact there are many sources does tend strongly towards all those sources collecting PD copies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I still confuse about what constitutes publication. This is undoubtedly a US work, as it was first exhibited in USA in 1913 at the Armory Show in New York. Isn't this sufficient for publication? Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication wasn't defined in the law, so courts had to make the determinations, and not surprisingly different judicial circuits ended up with different definitions. So it's not just you. Exhibition where the right to reproduce (photograph etc) was prevented was not publication (American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, a 1907 case regarding an exhibition in Europe which happened years before, did not forfeit copyright). The implication was that display where copies could be made was publication, so outdoor permanent display (for statues etc.) has generally been taken as publication. That was part of the ruling in s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. Exhibitions in galleries are less obvious, without knowledge of whether copying was prevented. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. The publication question was more when copies were made and maybe distributed. The catalog does say that many of the paintings at that show were for sale -- that may have also been considered publication, but unsure if this painting was included in that list. If we are talking about Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, it seems it was exhibited in Europe (and perhaps offered for sale there) in 1912 before the Armory show. It sounds like it was published in a 1913 French book for sure, so the U.S. copyright is gone. But somewhat doubtful we can call that first published in the U.S., given pretty equivalent display in Europe before that. If Spain is the country of origin due to that, it won't be PD until 2049. Might be best just to assume France as the country of origin -- the French book may be the first publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Wow! More than one thousand works of art. That was a huge exhibition. I thought that press reporters would be allowed to take pictures in such an exhibition. That would then constitute publication, right? Is it possible to find that in newspapers archives? Yann (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they were allowed to make copies of the individual paintings, probably not. Being included in the background of a photo probably would not. And even then, the same question would arise for the previous exhibition in Spain. And maybe the artist had offered it for sale in France before that. I don't think there is near enough evidence to call the Armory show the first publication. Particularly by Berne standards, which is what other countries may use, when determining the rule of the shorter term. The U.S. definition probably doesn't matter much, as it was absolutely published before 1929 so is in the public domain there regardless. The question is what all the other rule-of-the-shorter-term countries would consider the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]