Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean Baptiste Perrin.jpg
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.
Photo #3234-2 from Roger Viollet from a set of photos by Henri Martinie (1881-1963) taken in 1930 (not 1926). Marked as possible copyviol by Martin H. [1]. --87.118.93.143 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Any source for this statement? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The American Institute of Physics credits the photo [2] (backup link) to AB Lagrelius & Westphal, which is the photo company used by the Nobel Foundation (it is credited in most photos of Les Prix Nobel). The photo was taken before 1942 (Perrin's death), thus PD-Sweden. Materialscientist (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thats the engraver or printmaker of that publication. Not the photographer. The question here is not the engravers copyright but those of the photographer. The photographer is given at http://www.roger-viollet.fr/accueil.aspx, search 'Perrin', go to page 4. --Martin H. (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Martin, thanks, you know much better than I how to find images. I AGF that Martinie is the author, but the question is where was this photo published and copyrighted first. At the moment, I tend to think Martinie provided his unpublished photo to the Foundation who printed and copyrighted it. The copyright sign by www.roger-viollet.fr is just a blanket protection of their website. For example, if you look at the AIP photoarchives, they blanket copyright all their content, even though they may not claim copyright for some photos (like this one). In other words, copyright for many Nobel photos is claimed elsewhere, but it does not mean the claims are valid. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- It also not means that the claim is invalid, not for the next 22 years. I think you must make this up with roger-viollet, apparently they manage the copyrights on this authors work. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Martin, thanks, you know much better than I how to find images. I AGF that Martinie is the author, but the question is where was this photo published and copyrighted first. At the moment, I tend to think Martinie provided his unpublished photo to the Foundation who printed and copyrighted it. The copyright sign by www.roger-viollet.fr is just a blanket protection of their website. For example, if you look at the AIP photoarchives, they blanket copyright all their content, even though they may not claim copyright for some photos (like this one). In other words, copyright for many Nobel photos is claimed elsewhere, but it does not mean the claims are valid. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the photo was given to Nobel the way they describe themself [3] then I dont think its valid to assume first publication in Sweden. They not know any details about the work = they not contracted a photographer, the photo wasnt exclusively taken for them and also not taken specially for publication in connection with the nobel price. They just asked the subject (or institution) to provide a photo, the subject (or institution) gave a photo that circulated already. That scenario is much, much, much more likely. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Insitutional memory loss. Normally, the Nobel foundation makes their own photo of the laureate, I assume when they are in Stockholm for the ceremony. In some cases, other photos are used, maybe because the laureate did not come to the ceremony or because they like a different portrait much better. But it looks like this photo of Perrin was made because he received the Nobel prize and for publication in Les Prix Nobel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- What make it look so? Why do they normaly make their own photo if they say otherwise? What source of information does allow you to assume that photos are made in Stockholm? If another photo is used becaue they like it more - or whatever - then it is strange to assume that the photo is first published elsewhere, they would take a photo that was published already and they want it published also with the nobel prize... --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Insitutional memory loss. Normally, the Nobel foundation makes their own photo of the laureate, I assume when they are in Stockholm for the ceremony. In some cases, other photos are used, maybe because the laureate did not come to the ceremony or because they like a different portrait much better. But it looks like this photo of Perrin was made because he received the Nobel prize and for publication in Les Prix Nobel. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the photo was given to Nobel the way they describe themself [3] then I dont think its valid to assume first publication in Sweden. They not know any details about the work = they not contracted a photographer, the photo wasnt exclusively taken for them and also not taken specially for publication in connection with the nobel price. They just asked the subject (or institution) to provide a photo, the subject (or institution) gave a photo that circulated already. That scenario is much, much, much more likely. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We have had this argument over similar Nobel Prize photos in the past -- the question is whether it was taken in Sweden or supplied by the subject, having been published eleswhere first. We don't know, therefor COM"PRP applies. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
