Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 September 22

September 22

File:Poornima indrajith.jpg

The picture is obviously taken by Poornima Indrajith herself and it does not appear to have been uploaded by her. Most probably poached from one of her social media page Jupitus Smart 03:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Cats Paw.jpg

This image is taken from a US film, so its first publication would be the US rather than the UK. If anyone has an easier way to check film renewals than trawling through PDF scans, it could be worth looking up the renewal records to check whether this motion picture is in the public domain due to non-renewal; otherwise, I doubt this image would satisfy the non-free content criteria. Felix QW (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:PulcinellaGuitar.jpg

The source link looks like "http://napolibella.bravepages.com/Riproduzioni/Martucci%20Antonio/Pulcinella.jpg". The artist with that name was born in 1934 and is probably still alive. — Ирука¹³ 12:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otto frank physiologist.jpg

The source given is a scientific journal article from 2009. The author of that article is given as Author of the image. This is clearly nonsense since the person in the picture, Otto Frank, died 1944. So the picture must be from that year or earlier. Even if it was him, the article has copyright: International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering. But it seems that the author of the article just found the image somewhere and copied it without permission. No clue how this could have been published here under a CC license. I wish we could keep it, but I don't think so. Skopien (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on copyright but the relevant article states:

Rights and permissions Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. so my understanding is that the copyright doesn't belong to International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering. The author or his institution will have paid for the CC licence. I suppose it's possible that the photograph was the property of the author of the article. Adh (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Open Access license would not be of much help since we do not accept non-commercial licenses on Wikipedia. However, it is very unlikely that the author of the article is the copyright holder of this image. Tineye finds a more complete version as an autograph card, so we can be pretty sure that it would be published in the sense of American law. Unfortunately, we have nothing to indicate that it has been published more than 95 years ago, so this does not show that the image is now in the public domain in the US. Felix QW (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image looks very similar to https://beckerarchives.wustl.edu/VC090-i090110 although cut down. If this is correct it implies that it may have been published in 1940. Adh (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Da Barbiano at Venice.jpg

There is no evidence that the photo was published before 1989. — Ирука¹³ 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:CuidadoMujeres1.jpg

A screenshot from a film goes into the public domain under different rules than a photograph. — Ирука¹³ 16:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]