File talk:Joseph F. Smith family.png

 

date

see http://books.google.ca/books?id=GLLCAB5vmMQC&pg=PA59&redir_esc=y for assigned date of 1904 (courtesy of User:Carl Lindberg)

Lx 121 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's doesn't matter what year it was taken, what matters is when the person who took the image died or when it was published.

1. The Widtsoe Collection is still copyrighted since "John A. Widtsoe" died in 1952, making it only 61 years old. Therefore {{PD-old}} doesn't apply.
2. It was published in 2005 per the Source information. The fact that the image was taken in 1904 doesn't mean it was published in 1904. {{PD-US}} only applies if the image was published prior to 1923, which is wasn't. Therefore {{PD-US}} doesn't apply.

This image is a copyright violation and cannot be listed in commons.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

License Issues

The two license listed are still not correct.

1. {{PD-US}} doesn't apply as was published in 2005 per the Source information. Was it published before, maybe, but that information is not given. As for the 1904 claim, as it says at Wikipedia:Reviewing free images:Common misconceptions, Creation is not publication: Sources often only provide the date a work was created. Creation is quite different from publication...For PD claims based on the date of first publication, the source needs to indicate the actual publication date." Therefor saying it was published in 1904 is blatantly false given the lack of a publican source so tagging it {{PD-US}} is incorrect.

1. {{PD-old}} doesn't apply the work has not Author given. Anonymous works would apply meaning the image must be 120+ years old or before 1895 (i.e. {{PD-US-unpublished}}). However, I belive that I have proven that this image is part of the Widtsoe Collection which is still copyrighted by "John A. Widtsoe" who died in 1952, making it only 54 years since Authors Death.

Commons:Project scope/Evidence says

In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence.

All cases doesn't mean ones we guess at or assume that this just becuse this image is old it's not copyrighted. Additionally, this image offers NO proof of publication AT ALL. The link suplied is to a book printed in 2008.

Additionally Public domain#Unpublished works even uses this very case as an example of when an image ISN'T allowed.

Actually, that can happen easily with photographs in archives. Remember that "publication" requires the consent of the rights holder (initially the photographer). Many historic photos may thus actually be unpublished works, unless it can be shown that they were published in olden times. Especially items like private letters or family photographs, or photos found in some album, may well be unpublished. There are special exemptions in copyright law for libraries and archives that allow them to reproduce (even for the general public) such works for non-commercial uses, but that does not constitute "publication" unless done with the authorization of the rights holder.

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to demonstrate that this file was ever published before 2008. These were family photos given to a library archive. They have only been reproduced twice, as far as anyone has found, all around 2008. Unless someone can fix the licences its a copyright violation.

This image is copyrighted unless more information is given, I.e. a publication date before 1923 or the Authors Death Date--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)