Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-1950s.jpg
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.
- Also impacted: File:Lumet-1950s-cropped.jpg
There is no information on the publication of this image here or at the source whence it is copied; hence, there's no way to assess if it was published in the period claimed or not, much less if copyright was asserted or renewed. The copyright status here is speculative. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete speedily, per ([1]), where this is described as the 'property' of Ullstein Bild (a German photo agency). The description is incorrect (by well over a decade), this is a photo of Lumet on the set of "The Appointment" in 1968. Revent (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is also a truly horrible version of this image. Revent (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's pretty poor. I think when I first uploaded it there wasn't even a photo of him in the article. While I don't expect anyone to care, as I've mentioned this a number of times to We Hope and was ignored, but claims of "property" or "rights managed" are not copyright claims. Getty, Corbis and Bettman had only a few copyrights ever registered even though they often had or still have a notice on their websites or image pages. They (i.e. Bill Gates) bought 10-15 million stock photos from various studios and press agencies and stuck a symbol on their sales page. Mazzone's book mentions their claims in his book and articles about Copyfraud. (see also: article) "A must read for anyone who cares about the future of creativity," said Jimbo. --Light show (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Light show: Getty (on that page) mentions the name of a specific photographer. Also, your 'attribution' was a complete (and wrong) guess, which makes it pretty obvious that you had no actual 'evidence' of the original publication. COM:PRP requires that we have actual evidence that a work is in the public domain, and a 'claimed' ownership is prima facie evidence that a work is under copyright, unless there is persuasive evidence to establish otherwise. That they did not themselves register the images is irrelevant... they act as the licensing agent for many copyright holders. Revent (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted by User:Natuur12 as a copyvio. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
