Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Elvis Presley in 1958
Files in Category:Elvis Presley in 1958[edit]
This came up at a FP nomination and I guess this should be discussed/investigated further. Afaict, the situation is like this:
These are photographs of Elvis Presley taken in 1958 on the set of King Creole:
- File:Elvis Presley - Modern Screen, June 1958.jpg: color version probably
OK - File:Elvis Presley, June 1958 (cropped).jpg: color version cropped probably OK
- File:Elvis Presley 1958.jpg: black and white version probably
Not OK - File:Elvis-Presley-1.jpg: derivative work of black and white version probably Not OK
.jpg){kind=link}
The color version was uploaded here first. It was published in the June 1958 Issue of "modern screen", where it was credited to "Paramount pictures" at the end of the article credited to Globe on page 72. It was upload to Commons in 2015 as {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but without any kind of documentation about what kind of research has been done to ascertain that status.
The black and white version non-cropped version here looks almost identical, just mirrored. However, there are subtle differences that seem to suggest that it is a separate exposure (mouth more open in the color one). Technically, that would have been possible with a medium or large format camera on a tripod, where backs with different film stocks could be swapped within seconds ("hold that pose, I'll do another one in color"). This was originally uploaded as a derivative work of the color version, using the same {{PD-US-not renewed}}. However, if this is indeed a separate exposure, it's copyright status needs to be assessed separately. After all, it is possible that it was not published at all in 1958 and just recently has been pulled from an archive.
Points to investigate/discuss:
- Is there any evidence or at least arguments to be made that the color version's copyright was not renewed? → Yes, probably OK
- Is the black and white version a separate exposure? → Not the same frame, finger has moved
- If no: Could it still have a copyright on its own (e.g. as carefully crafted darkroom print)? → not relevant
- If yes to any of the above: when and where was it first published? If before 1963, was the copyright renewed? → No information available
- If no: Could it still have a copyright on its own (e.g. as carefully crafted darkroom print)? → not relevant
El Grafo (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Adam Cuerden and Lošmi: FYI. --El Grafo (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete the black-and-white versions: these are indeed from a very similar but separate shot. If you mirror one of them and overlay them using the pattern on the shirt as reference, it is obvious. Even visible without that if you know where to look on the non-cropped version of the bw image: the thumb is pointing upward in the color version, hiding the nail in the shadow, while in the black and white version the thumb is more horizontal with its nail clearly visible. Whatever copyright applies for the color version is irrelevant here, and we simply don't know when the black-and-white shot was first published. For all we know, it may have been sitting in an archive until someone scanned it and uploaded it to the web. --El Grafo (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep the color ones; the magazine was not renewed, and could not find a renewal for the photograph either. It was apparently uploaded to the Internet Archive by the Library of Congress themselves; they would have checked U.S. copyright status (though possibly not for every image). But I think it's OK beyond a significant doubt. If more evidence comes to light, it could be reconsidered then.
- Less sure on the black and white ones. Clearly the same photography session, or maybe a different frame from a video. But we don't have explicit publication history for it, as it appears to be a different photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the black-and-white versions Per El Grafo. Lošmi (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Assuming the color photographs are in the public domain (which it appears that they are), keep the grayscale files. Copyright for photographs is not based on the physical, mechanical action of actually taking the photograph, but in choosing the scene, setting up the shot, etc. I do not see any difference which rises to the level of originality in the black-and-white photograph versus the color photograph; as such, it is not necessary to determine the copyright status of that work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Each photo can have an independent copyright. They are not derivative works of each other, so it's not a question of what expression was added over a similar PD work, since it was not based on that earlier work. The timing can also be one of the aspects of copyright. This can be a "thin" copyright, protecting only straight copying of the work, but it can still exist. More particularly here though, is the question of publication. It's entirely possible one photo was published at the time, and the other not until years later, which could make for very different copyright situations in the U.S. They are clearly the same author, but the question is publication -- we have definite information on the color version, but no evidence on the black and white. If they are frames from the same film, and the film was published, then it should be fine since the renewal checks would apply to both. But if the second photo was licensed and published separately, it could be different. It's tempting to keep, but without any provenance information on the second, it probably rises to a significant doubt for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, if the bw one was scanned from a print (rather than straight from a negative film), that may have a copyright on its own. Unlike "modern" C-41, black-and white darkroom printing back then was by no means a standardized procedure with loads of room for creativity (see Ansel Adams). Not saying that must be the case here, but since we just don't know, COM:PCP applies. El Grafo (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Each photo can have an independent copyright. They are not derivative works of each other, so it's not a question of what expression was added over a similar PD work, since it was not based on that earlier work. The timing can also be one of the aspects of copyright. This can be a "thin" copyright, protecting only straight copying of the work, but it can still exist. More particularly here though, is the question of publication. It's entirely possible one photo was published at the time, and the other not until years later, which could make for very different copyright situations in the U.S. They are clearly the same author, but the question is publication -- we have definite information on the color version, but no evidence on the black and white. If they are frames from the same film, and the film was published, then it should be fine since the renewal checks would apply to both. But if the second photo was licensed and published separately, it could be different. It's tempting to keep, but without any provenance information on the second, it probably rises to a significant doubt for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Going with El Grafo's analysis here. --Natuur12 (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)