Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Foulsham & Banfield

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 in Category:Foulsham & Banfield

These are photos from a London (UK) photo studio. It says right at the top of the category "Author is either Frank Foulsham (1873-1930) or Arthur Clive Banfield (1875-1965)". Since I couldn't find any specific photographer mentioned, per the precautionary principle it should be assumed that Banfield is the photographer (or co-photographer), and the files should be deleted (they can be restored in 2036). Unless someone can conclusively show (for one or more images) that actually Foulsham was the sole photographer.

Rosenzweig τ 20:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is much too strict interpretation of our policy. However the license is the wrong one in some cases. This should be corrected. We should consider the studio as author unless a specific photographer is mentioned, i.e. {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Foulsham and Banfield was a studio, and for our purposes is a single entity. Either partner or any of their assistants may have taken the photographs. Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm not convinced. How exactly, in your opinion, does UK law define "unknown" in copyright matters? Is the author "unknown" if the photo studio, consisting of two photographers, is known? And is there any basis in UK copyright law for the studio being "a single entity"? Who would be the author / holder of the copyright then? How long would it last? I'm willing to let myself be convinced, but there'd need to be some far more concrete explanation why you (apparently) think these images are in the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the studio was the author. It closed by the end of the 1920s, and so its photos are PD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any basis in UK copyright law for your claim that "the studio was the author"? If so, where, and how is that provision worded? --Rosenzweig τ 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all these are valid on English Wikipedia under en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. I'd suggest moving anything in use there over there. Note I have put the Gabrielle Ray under a en:Template:KeepLocal (and different file names, because I uploaded in the wrong order and there's no easy way around it: en:File:Gabrielle Ray (c. 1910) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO002691 - Original.jpg is the base of the set there). Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is speculation based on the anonymous comment "Author is either Frank Foulsham (1873— 1930) or Arthur Clive Banfield (1875—1965)", for which there is no source. Just looking quickly at Banfield, his correct dates are 1876 — 23 June 1966. In any event, I do not see any copyright being claimed here. Moonraker (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to claim copyright under UK law, it exists as soon as a work is created. And even if Banfield lived one year longer, would it make any difference? Where did you get that 23 June 1966 date from anyway? Multiple sources that I found all say 1965, including Wikidata. --Rosenzweig τ 06:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenzweig, the multiple sources you found are all wrong. The register of the National Registration Act 1939 gives Banfield’s date of birth, and his registered date of death is as stated above. Moonraker (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Yann said at the beginning, the author is officially the studio and not a person, and we don't need excessively strict intepretations of the Wikimedia guidelines. --Marcok (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any basis in UK copyright law for your claim that "the author is officially the studio and not a person"? If so, where, and how is that provision worded? --Rosenzweig τ 09:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously questioning that corporate copyright exists in Britain, as in other countries? You will see that the images are credited in the originals to "Foulsham and Banfield". It is risible to suggest that Mr Foulsham might have asserted copyright to half the firm's images and Mr Banfield to the other. Time to stop this nonsense, which has attracted the support of precisely no-one. As there is a clear consensus to keep, and no evidence to support the alternative, I suggest the discussion can properly be closed as soon as possible. Tim riley (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously questioning that a corporate entity (like a company) can be the author of a work under UK copyright law. That's why I'm asking people claiming that for a basis to their claims in UK copyright law. So far I have found that companies can own copyrights (like in the case when employees create works for their employers), but that does not make them the author of these works. And the actual copyright terms are still tied to the creator/author (specifically, the time they died) as far as I could find. So no, this is not "nonsense", but a serious question which so far nobody has answered. --Rosenzweig τ 14:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, deletion requests are not votes, in case you did not know. --Rosenzweig τ 14:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that crediting to a corporation is effective anonymity if not better specified, though this case may be ambiguous if it's literally one of the two, and not one of them or an uncredited assistant. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Rosenzweig has the right of it here. Unless we can find evidence otherwise, the copyright for these photographs have joint copyright between Foulsham and Banfield. Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a joint work, so it can't be a joint copyright. Yann (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Yann: , @Tim riley: , @Ssilvers: , @Adam Cuerden: , @Moonraker: , @Marcok: , @Abzeronow: I've put some more research into this and into various aspects of this case which were mentioned in the discussion or which I found while doing the research. I'll list them below in bullet point form and sign each section separately to allow for easy and transparent discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The studio is the author: Several users brought up this claim. I asked them if there is any basis in UK copyright law for that claim, but did not get an answer to that question. So I looked it up in the current en:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Section 9 ("Authorship of work.") of that act says "In this Part “author”, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it." Section 12 ("Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.") says "Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.", followed by some more detailed rules for special types of works. Accd. to section 4 ("Artistic works."), photographs are artistic works. So it is clear: The author of a photograph in the UK is a human being, not some sort of corporate entity, company or such, and copyright expires 70 years after the death of that person. Claims like the studio is the author do not have a basis in UK copyright law, and you cannot say that these photos are in the PD because they were credited to a photo studio (that ceased operation more than 70 years ago) and not a person. -- Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The author is unknown: Section 9 (5) of the 1988 act says "For the purposes of this Part the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown." This is also referenced in {{PD-UK-unknown}}: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." The duration of copyright then ends, accd. to section 12 (3) of the act, "(a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or (b) if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available". Now: What exactly is "reasonable inquiry"? When was enough inquiry done? Is there any case law etc. about this? Considering this act is from 1988, from before the invention of the World Wide Web, it seems reasonable to assume that a quick Google search (or even less) is not what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote "reasonable inquiry". You would have needed to consult books, make telephone calls, write letters etc. to inquire about who an author would be. If you can find out the author these days by a quick internet search, fine. But if you cannot, shouldn't you try to exhaust some conventional resources too? Records? Literature? In this case, given that we already know the photo studio, can we really claim that the author is "unknown" (because it is convenient for us) if we know the two principal (perhaps sole) photographers of this studio? Did anybody who uploaded these images ever bother to try to find out more about this studio, if there were any other photographers besides the two we know, if both of them were active in all of the years that studio existed, etc.? To say that the author is "unknown" is too convenient in this case in my opinion. -- Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rosenzweig: As I said, there's a reason I put the one I did onto en-wiki. But I do think this is going to vary by which image. Some of these are just scans from newspapers, but the Gabrielle Ray is from a major museum. I'd say that, if it's from a major museum or library, we can have more confidence. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's from the archive of an Italian music publisher, and that archive put up a lot of scans of images saying that they are licensed by the archive under CC BY-SA 4.0. Which might be fine if you take that license just to cover the scan, but it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they really care or even know about the actual copyrights of the works they scanned. The exif data of said image don't show any copyright status beyond that CC BY-SA 4.0 license. --Rosenzweig τ 15:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Co-authors and joint authors: Sections 10 ("Works of joint authorship.") and 10A ("Works of co-authorship") of the 1988 act have these cases where works have more than one author. While co-authorship is apparently restricted to works that combine text and music (like operas and musicals), joint authorship can be applied to a wider range of works. In our case however, accd. to section 12 (8), the duration of copyright would still be 70 years after the death of the last (known) author, i. e. Banfield. So nothing of substance would change. -- Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Protection of the copyright of photographs in the UK, terms of protection, need for registration: The first act to protect the copyright of photographs in the UK was the Fine Art Copyright Act of 1862, which protected paintings, drawings and photographs for the term of the natural life of the author and seven years after his death. Section 4 of that act introduced The Register of Proprietors of Copyright in "Paintings, Drawings, and Photographs" (like a similar, already existing register for books), in which you had to register your work if you wanted to sue anyone under the act. So registration was necessary if you wanted to sue, but not for the copyright of works to exist: "In particular, the Bill proposed: that copyright protection should not be contingent upon registration" [1]. The en:Copyright Act 1911 (section 3) changed the duration of copyright protection to the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death (in general), but specifically for photographs (in section 21) to fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived. So probably the UK copyrights of at least some of Banfield's photographs originally expired either seven years after his 1965 death (at the end of 1972) or 50 years after they were made. The Duration of Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1995 No. 3297 (specifically, Regulation 16) however changed that and revived some expired UK copyrights: "The new provisions relating to duration of copyright apply— [...] (d) to existing works in which copyright expired before 31st December 1995 but which were on 1st July 1995 protected in another EEA state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights." (EEA = European Economic Area, that's the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) Basically the same thing happened in Germany (§ 137f (2) Urhg): Copyrights for works that had expired in Germany, but that were still protected in an EU or EEA state on 1st July 1995, were revived. The courts then found out (s:de:Oberlandesgericht Hamburg - U-Boot Foto 1941) that Spain, in an 1879 copyright law, had protected the copyright of photographs for the life of the creator plus 80 years, provided that the photographs showed at least some degree of originality and some personal effort of the author. The photographs were not required to be artistic for this. So we must assume that these carefully arranged photographs done by a professional studio photographer were still protected in Spain on 1st July 1995 (the law in Spain changed only later that year), unless the photographer had died in 1914 or earlier. Which means their UK copyrights were revived by the 1995 regulations. -- Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Precautionary principle: There were some comments that this DR is a "much too strict interpretation of our policy" or that "we don't need excessively strict intepretations of the Wikimedia guidelines". I fail to see how the assumption that these photographs, which we know to be from a specific photo studio, were made by one of the two known main photographers (probably also founders and owners) of that studio, is a "much too strict interpreation" or "excessively strict intepretation" of the precautionary principle. This isn't just a hunch or some outlandish idea; on the contrary, the likelihood of this assumption is very high. So high that I think that, indeed, there is significant doubt about the freedom of these files. I know some people think that the purpose of the precautionary principle "is to ensure that someone clearly identifiable and reasonably alive (or dead less than 70 years ago) has not their rights infringed", or that for significant doubt, "you need more than a hunch, like finding another copy of the image with the name of the author in a reverse Google image search" (those are quotes I read in DRs). So basically these people seem to think that the precautionary principle only applies if you already know the author of a work and you know that it is still protected. You don't need a precautionary principle for that because then you already know that a specific file violates the rules. The precautionary principle is precisely for cases like this one. -- Rosenzweig τ

This is the completely wrong way to address the issue. The precautionary principle is for images which are likely under a copyright and without a free license, e.g. recent images of which we don't know the source. It is NOT for 100+ years old images for which we know the source and the creator, i.e. one of the person working for Foulsham & Banfield. Your 10K rethoric is useless if you fail to understand that. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to "understand" here. I don't actually see any of what you write in Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. That policy is not restricted to recent images or images for which we don't know the source, nor does it say that images that are older than X years are not covered by it. How else could the "aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed" be possible? That we don't know if these images are still copyrighted, but that it is very well (not just remotely) possible, is the point of this DR. --Rosenzweig τ 23:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Waltz Dream.jpg for another photo from this studio. --Rosenzweig τ 04:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On application of Rosenzweig's comments, the outcome, at least in relation to the image I uploaded, is as follows. The author is a human being, not the studio. To make a "reasonable inquiry", I would need to act reasonably by the standards of the time I make the enquiry. Importantly, I would need only to make a "reasonable inquiry", not an exhaustive one. The publicly available information about the studio is that the photographs were taken either by a human being whose images are now public domain, or by a human being whose images are possibly still covered by copyright. However, there is no information, either on the web page from which I downloaded the image I later uploaded, or on the image itself, to establish which, or even to provide any clue as to which, of those two humans was the author. Additionally, as has been pointed out above, it is at least possible that the human being who took the photograph was an unidentified assistant employed by the studio. As to an inquiry, it is reasonable for me, a private individual resident in Australia, to consider the web page from which I downloaded the image. That web page, published by the State Library of South Australia, a government body, states "This image has no known copyright restrictions.", and it is entirely reasonable for me to rely upon it. If I were to write to that government body, I would likely receive the same response, and I can't get any answer from the studio, because it ceased to exist approximately a century ago. So I take the considered view that the image is public domain under UK law. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying I found the image online on the website of an Australian state library, that library says the image is in the PD, and I can't ask the studio because it ceased operations a long time ago. Since this is 2021, that's enough reasonable inquiry, and I assume that the image is in the PD in the UK, and presumably you're saying we should use the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag for the image you uploaded and for all the others too. I think that's exactly what, as I wrote above, the UK lawmakers of 1988 did not have in mind when they put "reasonable inquiry" into a law from before the WWW was invented. You apparently don't want to bother to look for literature or if someone has records to consult on the matter. By searching for a short time only, I found two recent books that mention Foulsham & Banfield. One of them is German and doesn't have much to help us here, but the other one is a bit more helpful. It's Art and Modern Copyright. The Contested Image by Elena Cooper, Cambridge University Press 2018, ISBN 978-1-107-17972-1. I was able to read it online via a library, and it says that the National Portrait Gallery archive in London has contracts and correspondence from Foulsham & Banfield.

Several years ago, I wanted to upload a map (of a region here in Germany), which was by a private company and had the cartographer's name on it, but I didn't know when he had died, and it wasn't so old that it simply had to be in the PD. So I sent the regional state library (from the state where that map was published) an e-mail, and they could help. It turned out that the cartographer had died less than 70 years ago, but they put me in touch with his grandson, I corresponded with him, and he permitted the upload under a free license, sent an e-mail to OTRS and everything. I probably wouldn't have done this for a work from Austria or even some other region in Germany, but I was willing to put in the effort in that case. We're talking about UK works here, and consulting these records mentioned above, available in the UK, shouldn't be beyond the reasonable inquiry as required by that law, as these laws were not written to ensure that it is quick, easy and convenient to establish the copyright status. (Ideally, it should be easier, but until such laws are changed, we'll have to deal with them as they are.) I know, you're in Australia and not in the UK and that would mean quite an effort, and I don't expect you to make that effort. But the onus to show something like this lies with the uploader, and if you can't really show that a work is free, perhaps you shouldn't upload it here and restrict your uploading to works which you can show to be free. --Rosenzweig τ 15:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and discussion. I did not find a rationale for a PD status on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. You cannot say this is “unknown authorship” because these photos were made in a well known studio. Further, per remarks of Rosenzweig. Can be safely undeleted 70 years afther the decease of Arthur Clive Banfield (1875-1965) . --Ellywa (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 in Category:Foulsham & Banfield

These are photos from the London (UK) photo studio operated by photographers Frank Foulsham (1873-1939) and Arthur Clive Banfield (1876-1966). This was discussed extensively the last time, and the conclusion was that the author is not "unknown" and that in the UK, while the copyright owner may be some corporate entity, the actual term of protection is tied to the person of the author, a human being. Since I couldn't find any specific photographer mentioned, per the precautionary principle it should be assumed that Banfield is the photographer (or co-photographer, per Section 10 – Works of joint authorship – of the UK en:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), and the files should be deleted (they can be restored in 2037). Unless someone can conclusively show (for one or more images) that actually Foulsham was the sole photographer.

Rosenzweig τ 16:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore the deleted ones, the consensus was keep, and the closer used a supervote to negate the consensus. --RAN (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are not votes and are not decided per “consensus”. You should known that. --Rosenzweig τ 10:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of their ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept, it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle. Jerimee (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While debates are not votes and consensus cannot trump copyright law, the delete request seems to be based on a sophisticated and inelegant interpretation of the law - one that certainly isn't obvious or uncontested. We have a reasonable and easy to comprehend argument for keeping the file. Jerimee (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“sophisticated and inelegant”? That's a new one. What matters though is if the “interpretation of the law” is correct or not, and if there is significant doubt about the free copyright status (COM:PCP). --Rosenzweig τ 13:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, Can be undeleted 70 years after Banfield's death. Undelete in 2037. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]