Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lumet-Caine-1982.jpg

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:Lumet-Caine-1982.jpg

To begin with, this was not a lobby card photo; as described at the eBay link from which it was taken, it is part of a French series of collectible cards for which people could send by mail order. There is no picture of the back of the image here or on ebay to verify whether copyright was or was not registered, and no information on how it was determined whether copyright was or was not renewed. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Delete No evidence provided by the uploader, or found after searching, to indicate that this image was published without notice. Other images of Sidney Lumet on the set, of similar vintage (see [1]) are copyrighted. Delete per COM:PRP. Revent (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: a copyright notice for a U.S. image is not evidence of registration. It acts as a 5-year common law copyright which allows that time frame to register it legally. The cost to legally register a copyright is currently $35, plus any attorney fees unless you do it yourself. In addition, until something is legally registered, there can be no infringement action for damages. That's the same for trademarks and patents. (Note a copyright summary, showing that even after the revised copyright law, which no longer required a notice, the 5-year rule still held for things published between 1978 and 1989: "Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years" = PD.)

But the cost is only one of the reasons that film studios would never even consider registering their hundreds of thousands of production or publicity stills. The other is that it would defeat the purpose of the still, which was to have it published for free in as many publications as possible in order to get the free advertising for the stars and films, as noted in film still. I have never found a publicity still that has ever been registered. That would be equivalent to having a grocery store on main street selling tickets or requiring permission to shop there. --Light show (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Light show: You are laboring under a gross misunderstanding. Per the USCO, Circular 1, "In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection." Also, "Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright." While a prior registration is a requirement for filing an infringement suit in court, copyright is not established by registration. Even in 'old' cases... "Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured."

The lack of a registration is not evidence that a work was never under copyright, it can only be evidence that this copyright was not renewed. Revent (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to make this explicitly clear, the only case in which a registration was ever required in order to establish copyright protection is if the work was originally published without a notice (during the period when notice was required), and per the COM:PRP we require definitive evidence that the original publication was without notice, and that the work was not registered within five years. Revent (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you just said, (except the part about the "gross misunderstanding)." You're getting into an area of copyright case law. For instance, you use the terms "protection" and "secured," which are correct. But you're using the current law's circular, so part of this is not relevant anyway for older issues. The few cases I found about this explained that while a notice always gave 28-year "protection," the protection was minimal after 5 years of no registration. So that if someone filed a claim for infringement, the courts "presumed" that it was PD unless the claimant proved it was registered and published. The burden of proof shifted to the copyright claimant.

And even if the proof was presented, then the court did not award damages but only made the infringer stop publishing the material. For example, if someone republished a manuscript or artwork that didn't have a copyright notice, it was not the burden of the infringer to search for a copyright registration. Of course those cases dealt with things such as manuscripts or artwork, and nothing remotely related to a publicity photo. --Light show (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Light show: The circular, if you actually read it, discusses (in depth) the circumstances applying to works that were published under older versions of the law... the last quote I gave was directly under the section title "Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978". You are still (obviously) missing the point of the PRP.... we do not care if a reuser might not be found guilty of 'willful infringement' by a court, or where the burden of proof would lie in such a case. We are not copyright lawyers. Uploading a work to Commons requires 'definitive' proof that a work is in the public domain, not a 'guess' that it probably is, or that the copyright might not be enforceable. Works that require arguments such as you are making are not allowable on Wikimedia Commons, even if someone might 'get away with' using those works. When we host a work that is stated as being in the public domain, if means we know that it is in the public domain, not that we think you might get away with using it. You must 'prove' that a work was published without a notice, or 'prove' that the copyright has expired. Simply not finding a registration is not such proof, unless the copyright would have expired due to non-renewal. The cases that you are looking at were (presumably, from my past reading of such things) not determinations that a work was not under copyright, they were determinations that the defendant was not guilty of 'willful infringement'. We do not care about that, we care about definite evidence that a work is actually in the public domain. You give, strongly, the impression that you are looking for loopholes that would allow a work to be usable.... if such an attempt (such as claiming that a copyright notice was not valid) is needed, then the work is not allowable on Commons per the PRP. Revent (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Deleted: No evidence of publication without notice, which is the basis of the PD claim. WJBscribe (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)