Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/E=mc squared

Albert Einstein

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 08:01:51 (UTC)

Reason: Fixed issues raised by first nomination. Highest ev for any other image.
Articles in which this image appears: Albert Einstein and History of Germany (highest EV)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: Ferdinand Schmutzer

Support either as nominator – The herald 08:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment - This has quite a bit of dust which could be removed. Also, where was this published before 1923? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what are the quality requirements here, I am more used to Commons'. The quality of the picture is not so good IMO, even for that time (the forehead is overexposed). Personally, I'd rather like it in B&W. And anyway, at least some cleaning is needed, which I did here: File:Albert Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yann:--How's the alternate.??--The herald 14:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Alt1. For the copyright, I agree with Coat of Many Colours below. It was most probably published in 1921, and even if published later, most probably without a notice. And even if published with a notice, it is most probable that the copyright was not renewed. I think we are safe enough on that ground. Yann (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Striked my comment. It seems the situation has changed. Yann (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or Alt1 (prefer Alt1) I think the proposed version is worth supporting. The original appears to be this at the Austrian National Library and I've added a link to the Commons description. I agree with Yann I prefer B&W. A crop of this image previously failed Featured because the nomination was spoilt by socking. This is an iconic photo of Einstein as an old man which is Featured. I certainly think we should have the younger one as a foil. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need is proof of publication before 1923, because otherwise this may be in copyright in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's been around on Commons a long time. On Commons it's accepted that date of publication is taken to be date of creation unless otherwise known to be the case, simply because of the difficulty in establishing a date of publication. Even were it known to be published after 1923 it would still be quite likely PD in the US because in all likelihood it wasn't published in compliance with US formalities, although there may be URAA issues. For example Commons:File:Albert Einstein Head cleaned.jpg above was copyrighted in 1947 but not renewed, so LoC take the view its PD. Why can't we just take the PD status of Commons Files on trust? It's their job to vet the status of their images. Plainly in blatant cases of copy vios which have escaped attention we should intervene, but otherwise it seems to me that we should just mind our own business and let them mind theirs. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Crisco 1492:--will this do any good Crisco for the date? They say 1921..The herald 15:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That unfortunately only establishes the date of creation. The Berne convention stipulate date of publication, which essentially means making it avilable to the public for copying. However by 1921 Albert Einstein was amongst the most celebrated physicists of his age. It's likely this image was published at the same time (as a book cover perhaps). I don't suppose it was a family snap (I rather doubt he did those). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd still like to see proof of publication. Otherwise, I sadly have to oppose for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Well, that's very disappointing and sets a bad precedent (if that's indeed what it is, is it?) for the forum. I'm not being obstructive when I say it's a real issue at Commons and that matter of factly policy is to accept date of creation as date of publication. I've been there with this debate: see my gripe about my tribulations over copyright issues as a nooby editor, where precisely this is raised. This worth quoting from that I think:

"What transpired was that right from the beginning obstacles were put in my way by editors who take upon themselves the policing of copyright in Wikipedia. A user Sfan00 IMG flagged for deletion a whole series of pre-1923 local uploads of works still in artists' copyright as possibly URAA breaches. This turned out to be entirely specious, simply flat-out wrong. But what was actually comical was that when I turned to the Teahouse, support group for newbies, an adviser there with no absolutely no avowed expertise in copyright issues whatsoever, whom I rather strongly suspected of knowing less about copyright than I did, took it upon himself to defend the deletions on the grounds that there was no evidence the works had been "published" pre-1923. My reasonable replies, on which I spent significant time, were simply rejected. When I actually presented an impeccable provenance and exhibition history for one of the works prepared by the National Gallery of London, he airily dismissed that as not proof of "publication". In the end it transpired he had no idea what constitutes "publication" and that in any case the issue had been debated and settled before in favour of my position. It's no accident that the invitation to the Teaparty no longer graces this page."

The article start in question was Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900. The painting I refer to above was Oskar Kokoschka's Portrait of Lotte Franzos (a local upload because it's not PD in Austria). This famous and beautiful painting, created in 1909, was immediately controversial. It's unthinkable that it wasn't "published" i.e. illustrated in one of the very numerous art magazines of the time, when it was first exhibited in 1911. Yet to provide "proof" of this publication would be a major undertaking that even the National Gallery of London could not supply in its Immunity from Seizure filing it made for the exhibition.

It's frankly tedious to continue contributing to debates like this. Eventually one gives up in frustration as I indeed did with almost my entire project when I started my account.

I urge editors to ignore this specious copyright issue raised here, really not our concern, when considering their support for this image.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy is to accept date of creation as date of publication"... really now? That's not my experience, and in fact I've seen several images taken in the 1940s be deleted because there was no proof that they were published at the time. For, say, an Australian photograph in which the year of creation is taken into consideration (and not publication), that might not be a problem, but for this image there are major issues. We should not knowingly promote a possible copyright violation as FP. Period. Possible copyvios are far from "Wikipedia's best work". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really now. Are you challenging? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought that was obvious. See my comment below. (Also, if you are saying it's commons "policy", please do link to said policy) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900 -- I remember that! I think I commented on some of the images. ~~I wouldn't call Stefan2 a newb. He's well versed in image issues and rarely wrong.~~ (add: Oops! Wrong editor) Paintings are particularly difficult to claim publication over (even worse than photographs) which is why Les Demoiselles d'Avignon has such a... muddy background and pile of debates about it. For that case, see File talk:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/PicassoPainting, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Les Demoiselles d'Avignon for some background. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to Stefan2 that he was Sfan00 IMG and he said he wasn't. The Tea House edit was some other editor. Stefan2 (as Stefan4 of Commons) was wrong to call the Chilkat blanket I uploaded a "sculpture". Busy rest of day, return this evening. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken as I had misunderstood which Stefen/Sfan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the debates over the Vienna exhibition, it appears you are paraphrasing a quote by Stefan2, namely "This problem is sometimes discussed on Commons, and Commons has more or less accepted that the date of publication is impossible to find, so Commons typically uses the date of creation instead." I should note again that this is for paintings, not photographs. Data of creation is generally not enough for a photograph to survive a deletion nomination at Commons (in my personal experience, at least). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, as conceded by the great Stefan2/4/etc. himself. And I can quote a long standing administrator at Commons in support as well. So there we are. It is exactly as I said i.e. to say Commons policy is to accept creation date as publication date failing evidence to the contrary. As for Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, of course that was "published" before 1923, Picasso long an established artist and the painting long iconic.

In this case we have a photograph of a similarly celebrated public figure which was plainly taken for the purpose of illustrating some work or other and there's every reason to suppose it was published at around the same time and no good reason to suppose it wasn't. So why the attitude here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: I think it is very sad that you oppose because of copyright issue. As I said above (did you read me?), even if we don't have a definitive proof, I think there is only one chance in a million that it is not in the public domain in the US. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Alt 1: Why do we have to desaturate photographs that were taken by a method that was genuinely sepia toned, and thus make them look like they were taken by another method? Disregard if the sepia tone is an a filter or something, but I'd presume it wasn't. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adam Cuerden: How do you know that the original in in sepia tone? Additionally, I think it isn't even really sepia. It looks more yellow to me. Anyway, the sepia tone is added on the print. The negative is not sepia. Yann (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, agree with Yann. I've already said in this forum (the Rotterdam image) how much I like sepia prints myself, but the archive print in the Austrian National Library isn't a sepia tint. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Given http://www.bildarchivaustria.at/Bildarchiv//474/B5103991T5103996.jpg , Support, but I'd like to know the real source for the image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm very tempted to believe that the dead link to the library/archives is the original source image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the image is public domain in Austria and the US Regarding the origin and copyright status of this image it is a study by the portraitist F. Schmutzer, a member of the Vienna Secession and its president from 1914 to 1917. Schmutzer did not intend his studies to be pubished, they were for his own private use. His studies were discovered in 2001 and sold to the Austrian National Library. It follows that this image could not have been published before 2001 and thus not within 50 years of its creation (1921), in turn making it public domain in both the United States and Austria.

Once again I plead that editors do not let these specious copyright concerns deter them from supporting fine images such as this. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished until 2001. Per the Hirtle Chart, this would have been considered published in 2001 in the United States and is thus in copyright until at least 2047. I'm nominating for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take it to a copyright forum first please, to make sure of the facts before nominating for deletion this long-standing multi-linked file. As I read the the Hirtle chart, it was first published abroad 2001 (purchase by a national archive constitutes publication) and in the public domain in Austria at the URAA date (Schmutzer died in 1925). So we are instructed to go to US publication chart to determine status and we have never published, never registered - "Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author" {{PD-US-unpublished}}. That's how I read the chart. @Stefan: Stefan will know - not that he responds to my pings very much . Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already nominated it for deletion. The Commons chart is lifted from Cornell, which makes the correct situation pretty clear I think. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Hirtle chart was published on Cornell's website first (but given a CC license). Have another read of {{PD-US-unpublished}}; for the 70 years pma to apply here, the images would have had to first been published in 2003 or later. This is in-line with what the Hirtle chart says (Commons version): "Created before 1978 and first published between 1 March 1989 through 2002 = The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047 = earliest 2047)". If this had been published just two years later, this would have been free, but sadly it wasn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query Aren't you looking in the wrong place? This is for work first published in the US. But this work was first published in Austria. The mere act of these images being purchased by a a national archive constitutes publication in US case law. QED. My money is on Cornell. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cornell - "Published abroad after 1 March 1989"

Published in a country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention - 70 years after the death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication.

Blame Cornell. Can't really be arsed with this any more. Sorry. A real expert like Stefan no doubt will be along in a while. Love you loads, Stef. No really. Honest Indian, swear by my blanket and everything. Peace pipe. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if we do assume that date of creation = date of publication (which is not my experience, and I am aware of no policy which suggests otherwise)- I think we need something a little stronger than "oh well, I suppose it's PD" for a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supplied by me above. Some drama about where exactly Austria is. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was mentioned above. I have nominated one copy of the file for deletion as unfree in both Austria and the United States, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg. Another copy of the file has been nominated for deletion by someone else at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all I can say is that I'll never pay the slightest attention to anything Cornell University ever says again. Thank god there are people here who really care. I'll write the National Library of Austria to let them know. Thanks very much Stefan and well done too especially the editor who researched all this! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done

To: bildarchiv@onb.ac.at

Subject: Bild Nummer 5103991

Message:

Can you comment please for me on the the Public Domain status in the United States (and indeed in Austria) of your holding inv. no. 5103991. This is a B&W glass negative portrait of Albert Einstein by Ferdinand Schmutzer, portraitist and President of the Vienna Secession 1914-1917, dating from 1921. I believe it was purchased by your library in 2001 along with other recently discovered negatives by Schmutzer. Is that correct? If not perhaps you can tell me when it was first published. I know that Schmutzer's images of Sigmund Freud are contested by the Freud estate. As far as I know there are no claims on his images of Albert Einstein. I would be grateful if you could confirm that as well.

I'll report back if I hear anything. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had confirmation from the ANL that the image was purchased in 2001 (copied to the nomination for deletion pages). This indeed means that the image is in their copyright until 2027 per article 4 Directive 2006/116/EC because it was published after the author's copyright had expired (on a point of clarity if had been published while in copyright then the ordinary term 70 year pma applies: thus if it had been published in 1998 - Schmutzer dying in 1928 according to Wikipedia - it would have entered PD the year following in the normal way).

The PD status in US not clear to me. I'm consulting source text tonight, if necessary US case law. I want to save this fine image at least for Wikipedia with a local upload. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the Schmutzer etching (thumbnailed) to Commons:File:Albert Einstein, Etching by Ferdinand Schmutzer 1921.jpg and posted at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Albert_Einstein_photo_by_Ferdinand_Schmutzer to enquire whether the 1921 publication of the etching is adequate to establish publication within the terms of the Berne Convention for the photo. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]