Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noether.jpg

This request is prompted by a question in German-language Wikipedia which was prompted by a VPC discussion which in turn was prompted by a discussion in English-language Wikipedia... I think that a deletion request is a more efficient way of handling this than discussing it in three separate places.

Well, the licensing is questionable. The manually constructed license in a {{PD-because}} template refers to section 72 paragraph 3 of German copyright law, which is dealing with simple photographs ("Lichtbilder"), but I think that photographs such as this one are now generally considered photographic works ("Lichtbildwerke") that are copyrightable for 70 years after the death of the author. Also, there is no real base for {{PD-US-expired}} as the date of first publication is not mentioned anywhere in the file description. On the other hand, the various "publishers" mentioned are obviously all just reproducing this seemingly very widespread image and are not the original source. For example, the flickr page by the Mathematical Association of America mentioned in this discussion where the image is marked with a CC-BY-ND license (which would be unsuitable) is probably irrelevant, as they published the photo there only in 2012, but it has been on Commons since 2005, even though originally in lower resolution. But as the author seems to be unknown, maybe it could be kept with {{PD-anon-70-EU}}; however, this doesn't seem to really apply to Germany unless we know for certain that the authorship never became public in any way. And it would still leave the question of the US copyright status of this work. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Info If this image is nominated for deletion then the derivatives File:Noether (petite image).png and File:Noether retusche nachcoloriert.jpg have to be nominated, too. — Speravir – 23:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some background info: Prior to this discussion, I had made two arguments for this image being in public domain. For reference I add the arguments below. To me the image looks like an official portrait created by a professional. Prior to its contemporary publication, we don't know if/when it was published. The first contemporary publication seems to be in 1995 by Agnes Scott College here and here, which credits Emiliana Noether as the source. Brooklyn Museum published the image here and referenced Agnes Scott College, Emiliana Noether, anonymous artist, and the date circa 1900 to 1910. Later, Mathematical Association of America (via Flickr) published the image here and credits Emiliana and Monica Noether as the source. Here are my public domain arguments:

PD in Germany: The image was created circa 1900 to 1910 in Germany. Per section 72 paragraph 3 of German copyright law the protection period for photographs is limited to 100 years beyond date of creation. Therefore copyright has expired.

PD in United States: These two sources [1], [2] suggest copyright ownership by her family (in footnotes: Emiliana and Monica), which suggests copyright ownership by Emmy Noether herself. 1- If the image was first published pre 1925 (anywhere in the world), then it is PD in U.S. 2- If the image was first published after her death in 1935, then it is PD in U.S. 70 years after her death, i.e. post 2005. 3- If the image was first published between 1925 and her death in 1935, then a copyright renewal must have been filed 28 years later, between 1952 and 1963, or else the image is in PD in U.S. I did a search for her name in the online copyright registration and renewal records from 1952 to 1963 and found reference to only one item, this book. The book was first published in 1930 (volume 1) and 1931 (volume 2) in Germany. The English translation of the book is available at the internet archive volume 1, volume 2, and the image doesn't appear in the book.

Bammesk (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

de:Cordula Tollmien has done research about Emmy Noether and the origins of photos of her [3]. According to Tollmien, the photo must have been taken about 1900, at least before Noether's doctorate, but she doesn't mention the photographer. --2003:E4:5F3E:CB4F:42B0:76FF:FE7B:15B2 07:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two important things that are always very helpful or necessary to determine the copyright status of a historical photograph:

• Who took it and when did they die? - particularly for EU / worldwide.
• When was it first published? - particularly for US.

Both are missing in this case. German copyright law differentiates between "simple photographs" ("Lichtbilder") and photographs that are creative works ("Lichtbildwerke"), and as far as I know, there is a tendency towards applying "Lichtbilder" (section 72) only to photographs where almost no human composition decisions were made, such as images from surveillance cameras, or reproduction photography. So this is most likely a "Lichtbildwerk" where the section 72 argument isn't valid. Regarding the US status: "If the image was first published after her death in 1935, then it is PD in U.S. 70 years after her death, i.e. post 2005" - no, there is no such term from the death of the depicted person. Whether and when exactly this image may be PD in the US is quite complex, see Commons:Hirtle chart - but the basic information that would make us able to determine the status is missing. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About "If the image was first published after her death in 1935, then it is PD in U.S. 70 years after her death, i.e. post 2005": I took that from the Unpublished works section here. I interpreted the word "author" to mean "copyright holder". My U.S. argument is based in part on copyright ownership by Emmy Noether herself, not the photographer, as her family/descendants are credited by Agnes Scott College and flickr. (On a sidenote, at one time her brother who survived her had possession [4]) Bammesk (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But why would you assume that Emmy Noether would have owned the copyright to begin with? Physical ownership of a photograph doesn't create copyright in the US either. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I would not hesitate to keep the image on all projects with more liberal regulations such as a pragmatic 100-years-rule, it is not compatible with commons under the local strict interpretations of the precaution principle. If we accept the reasoning by Cordula Tollmien and date the image to 1900 and assume a professional photographer that is unknown, then we can't allow the image to stay on commons. Unfortunately. So please copy the file to all more liberal projects, where we can keep a copy and delete it here. --h-stt !? 13:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment This book attributes the photo to "Bryn Mawr College Library". Maybe someone can write them to see if they know anything on its copyright status? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I placed an inquiry with the Bryn Mawr College Library's help desk through their website. I hope to get an email reply. Bammesk (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bryn Mawr College Library replied and they have no information about this image. I also sent an email to Monica Noether, great niece of Emmy Noether, and she replied. She doesn't know the origin of the photo, she has possession and has no objection to us hosting the image, and noted the image is widely used in the public domain. Bammesk (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed this already while searching for this image with image search engines. In German there is a saying “

Das Kind ist in den Brunnen gefallen

”; English equivalents seem to be “the milk is spilt/soured” or “locking the stable door after the horse has bolted”. But this is not a valid argument for us. The sense is essentially something like “The others have done it wrong for years, let’s do it wrong, too.” — Speravir – 22:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Another aspect: We have in Commons a pragmatic rule to assume files being in public domain 120 years after creation. Unfortunately Commons:Cut-off date for PD-old files is not in a state serving as an official guideline, but it links to the proposal and votings. — Speravir – 19:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Speravir: Yes, {{PD-old-assumed}} is for works created more than 120 years ago. This seems rather unlikely; this photo may have been created before 1910, but before 1900? Emmy Noether would need to be younger than 18 in this photo if that were the case... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: You’ve linked yourself above to Cordula Tollmien’s page about Emmy Noether photos, what I think is very useful. Miss Tollmien writes about the image in question in German:

„Dieses Foto ist bisher immer auf die Zeit nach Emmy Noethers Promotion datiert worden. Ein Vergleich mit anderen Fotos Emmy Noethers und vor allem ein Blick auf die Mode der Jahrhundertwende zeigen aber deutlich, dass dieses Foto sehr wahrscheinlich schon um 1900 aufgenommen wurde, Emmy Noether also als 18jährige beim Start in ihr Universitätsstudium zeigt.“

– or in my DeepL’s translation attempt: “This photo has always been dated to the time after Emmy Noether's promotion. However, a comparison with other Emmy Noether photos and, above all, a look at fashion at the turn of the century clearly shows that this photo was most likely taken around 1900, i.e. shows Emmy Noether at the age of 18 when she began her university studies.” Emmy Noether was born in March 1882, so she was 18 in 1900. Hence the pragmatic rule should be considered. — Speravir – 22:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add.: According to wiki article she started studying in 1903, though. This would mean we have to delete the image for 3 years and undelete it in 2023 … or we discuss this case for some years here. <evil grin> — Speravir – 22:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speravir, she started her university studies in 1900 at the University of Erlangen and she graduated (not from the university, I am learning!) in 1903, then she went to University of Göttingen. (source: [5] pages 11 to 14, and [6]). Bammesk (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Speravir: It wasn't me who linked to to Cordula Tollmien's page (it was some IP user), but yes, in light of this research I think we could consider {{PD-old-assumed}}, if we don't interpret the 120 years rule strictly, as it is a pragmatic rule of thumb anyway. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. — Speravir – 23:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we try to determin the time of the photo through the style of her clothings? --Matthiasb (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photo has been displayed on the internet for 25 years, since 1995 [7], perhaps this might alleviate some of the concern about the photographer or artist (currently anonymous). Bammesk (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The photo has been displayed on the internet for 25 years" is explicitly not a valid argument per COM:PCP (points 4, 5). But as said before, I would have no problem with a slightly liberal interpretation of {{PD-old-assumed}} in this case, but the admin closing this discussion should decide that. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiasb: For verification of Cordula Tollmien’s claim? If we knew whether there are experts for this time in of these, de:Liste von Modemuseen#Deutschland or in de:Deutsches Mode-Institut, we could try to ask. One I noticed in regional media is de:Josefine von Krepl, but I do not know, how to get in contact with her (she is apparently not active anymore in the museum she founded). — Speravir – 22:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is easier to contact Cordula Tollmien first, whether or not she can give even more information about the date of the photo or even the photographer? Or about experts in old clothing – she seems to have done some research about the clothing style, too. Tollmien's contact information is on her website. --2003:E4:5F3E:CB4F:42B0:76FF:FE7B:15B2 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tollmien gives a chronology here including the early part of Noether's university studies. In the chronology Tollmien lists the photo at "around 1900". English translation here. Bammesk (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment The damage done by deleting this would be substantial and ongoing, whereas the actual risks of keeping such an old image is utterly negligible. IANAL but it seems to me that for this to be legally actionable they would require paperwork that probably never existed to start with, or is long, long, long destroyed. In any case Wikipedia itself has enormous protection under the free harbour legislation in America where the servers are found, and all the rightful owner would have to do is perform a DCMA takedown if they had any proof, and it would be gone within a day. I'm going with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and say FFS Keep it.GliderMaven (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In all likelihood this image was published early (before 1925) or recently (after 1995). As an anonymous work, this makes it ineligible for protection in Germany. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]