Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DDupard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files uploaded by DDupard (talk · contribs)

[edit]

BNF interpretation that all parts of a magazine are to be considered as collective work is not accepted on Commons, in view of the sheer nature of collective works in France. Furthermore, these advertisments cannot be considered as part of the publication's collective work, they are separate works. We need more specific evidence they are in the public domain.

— Racconish 💬 16:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same information as upload by nominator Racconish : File:Pour Un Homme , Parfum de Caron - Vogue, January 1934.jpg???.--DDupard (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had forgotten this one . — Racconish 💬 16:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what or which more "specific evidence" is requested?--DDupard (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case it is {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} and
Bibliothèque nationale de France
 probably knows what it does and says when downloads are allowed and clearly marked public domain  Keep--DDupard (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} does not apply here. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Baionnette 2 December 1915.png for a long discussion of why we cannot accept BNF blanket position that any part of a newspaper published more than 70 years ago is a collective work. In a nutshell: the French legal definition of collective work is restrictive and does not apply to a signed article, a signed artwork or an external production such as an advertisement. — Racconish 💬 18:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned : Not signed/Author unknown. Will read your exchanges later, link should have explicitly been given earlier - instead of obscure hints and guess work for recipient.--DDupard (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Baionnette 2 December 1915.png seems to consider rights of a signed caricature drawing by an artist of some notability.--DDupard (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A work does not have to be signed to be entitled to copyright protection. — Racconish 💬 12:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So please enlighten me, where is it specified who is the copyrights holder for this document, in this instance, marked Public domain. And please also state clear-cut and understandable reference literature.--DDupard (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are reverting the burden of proof: it is up to you to show evidence of a reasonable enquiry, i.e. the research you have carried out to find who the author was, such as for example specialized monographies (e. g. Colard, Cardot or Monsen and Baer, cited here) saying the author is unknown. BNF's blanket assessment is not sufficient. — Racconish 💬 08:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question presented to 'Legifer' on WP.fr, answer given with specific links to 'Legifrance' - law articles :[1].--DDupard (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In French copyright law (art. L. 121-1) as well as in the Berne convention (art. 6bis), the right for the author to divulgate his paternity of the work is a moral right with no time limitation. The point here is to establish evidence of your enquiry on the authorship of these specific works. — Racconish 💬 15:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Racconish could you please give an example of "evidence of inquiry" established. --DDupard (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit reference to some of the three sources I mentioned above, Colard, Cardot or Monsen and Baer. — Racconish 💬 20:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Racconish, I still don't understand what is expected. Should these authors in these books state that these very images were created by people whose name is unknown?--DDupard (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or something else to the same effect. — Racconish 💬 07:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the books mentioned in the article ‘Parfums Caron ‘ focus on the bottles [2] - glass and glassware. As far as advertising is concerned, this lovely one [3] seems to be part of a museum collection and that one for 'Royal bain' [4] seems to be from an unknown artist ; As you can see, both images on these sites are of much greater quality than the Bnf scans. (incidentally, I also see that there is something called PD-Scan)

I also read that department store advertising in early twentieth century usually relied on an in house team of young art students.

Otherwise a generic image search brings this: [5], and in my reply on September 16 [6], I indicated, that a selection had been made.--DDupard (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't this be an illustration of being more Catholic than the Pope himself?--DDupard (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked for a third opinion here, I remind you there is a consensus to consider we cannot follow blindly BnF's assessment. It seems you consider yourself these works may be from Marcel Moore or Claude Cahun, whose works are not PD [7]. In any case we should apply COM:PCP.— Racconish 💬 09:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I am not far from the BNF library, I am going to go on site and check what the precise and specific status on these images is in 2019. I have never spoken of 'not PD', on the contrary, I offered a possible hypothesis, in which I also advanced that for respectability reasons, these images might have been published anonymously, thus being voluntarily excluded of copyrights. Hypothesis that I am going to check as well. --DDupard (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Racconish, in the book Caron by Jean Marie Martin-Hattemberg consulted on site at the Caron Store on Place Beauveau, I find that photos were usually taken by Ernest Daltroff' brother Raoul, this one [8] in particular, and that drawings were made in house by Ternat, Paul [9], otherwise nothing at Bnf-Richelieu--DDupard (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Raoul Daltroff likely died in 1920 [10] and his involvment on a 1926 creation is therefore unlikely. The two creative heads of Caron were then Félicie Wampouille (died 1967) and Paul Ternat (died 1951), the latter working under the former. If we have a source attributing a creative work to the sole Ternat, then it would fall in the public domain in 2022 ; otherwise, per COM:PCP, we should assume Wampouille was involved and the PD year would be 2038. For further clarification, it might be useful to check Martin-Hattemberg's book on Caron which seems to be the source used on Museu del perfum. — Racconish 💬 08:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_DDupard&oldid=624791024"