Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt

The Studio Harcourt photographs have been discussed numerous times. The lengthiest discussions were probably those this year, 2024, a few months ago at Commons:Village pump/copyright. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/07#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992). These discussions were rather thorough, and the outcome was that the majority of the Studio Harcourt photos Wikimedia Commons is hosting today are not under a free license, and they are also not in the public domain in the United States or not in the public domain in both France and the United States.

A short recap (details at the COM:VPC links above): Studio Harcourt was a photo studio founded in Paris in 1934. The studio soon gained prominence as a "celebrity" studio, which means many of its photos are of notable people and interesting for Commons. Studio Harcourt ran into economic difficulties and had to sell some of its assets, including some 5 million photos and the economic rights (copyrights, or patrimonial rights in France) to those photos. These photos and the rights were acquired by the French state in 1989/1991, directly or from third parties (there were at least two batches). User:Günther Frager found a 2003 French court case, Studio Harcourt vs Mélodie (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 4 février 2003, 2001/17786), which confirmed that the French state owned those rights at least in 2003. And indeed, on various websites offering the photos the French state claims a copyright for them to this day.

The original Studio Harcourt was liquidated (even if User:Tisourcier insists that this is not the case because some photo historian wrote it in a book, the court case clearly indicates the liquidation happened). The Studio Harcourt brand name and logo was sold in an auction and acquired by others. These others then opened a new photo studio under the traditional Harcourt name. There were several name changes, see the VPC archives for details. This "new" Studio Harcourt was one of the two parties involved in the 2003 court decision cited above. It also, as User:Studio Harcourt, uploaded 100 newer photos to Wikimedia Commons in 2010 (these 100 files are not nominated for deletion with this deletion request). Finally, the "new" Studio Harcourt was also a party involved in another court decision from 2014, which decided that in France, photos from Studio Harcourt are collective works, giving them a copyright of 70 years from creation/publication (and not 70 years after the photographer's death which would be the norm in France).

So accd. to the 2014 court decision, as of 2024, all Studio Harcourt photos from 1953 or older are in the public domain in France. Since France had a copyright term of 58 years and 120 days on its URAA date (January 1, 1996), all Studio Harcourt photos from before 1937 should also be in the public domain in the US, because their US copyrights were not restored by the URAA. Any more recent photos are however still protected in the US by the usual 95 year term.

Which means this deletion request nominates Studio Harcourt photos from 1937 or newer (except the 100 newer photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2010 by User:Studio Harcourt, as mentioned above). We will be able to undelete those after 95 + 1 years, so those from 1937 in 2033, from 1938 in 2034 etc. I'll add notes to those files which don't have a year (or a wrong year) in the file name.

During the COM:VPC discussions and before, a number of arguments came up claiming that these files were released under a free license or into the public domain, by the French state or by the "new" Studio Harcourt:

• RAN claimed that the French state released them either under a CC license or into the public domain, but never came up with any proper evidence for those claims.

• A VRT ticket ticket:2020112910005534 from the "new" Studio Harcourt has a statement from a woman named Agnes Brouard working for Studio Harcourt Paris and Chargée de la valorisation des collections, which basically claims that there are no patrimonial rights for all older Harcourt, which is saying that they are in the public domain. Some users, like User:Tisourcier (who uploaded many Harcourt photos) and User:Yann, think that is enough, that we should just rely on that statement and declare the photos to be in the public domain.
  However, that contradicts the 2003 court case which found that the French state owned those rights. Even if the state had released them into the public domain since then, there is no statement whatsoever to that effect, on the contrary, the state routinely still claims a copyright for the photos.
  As User:D. Benjamin Miller pointed out in the second COM:VPC discussion, 1) once the copyright had been transferred to the state, anything the "new" Studio Harcourt or one of its employees says is legally irrelevant, 2) the French government seems unlikely to have dedicated the copyrights to the public domain (it is, among other things, inconsistent with their copyright claims and their business of selling the photos online), and 3) the purpose of the VRT is to collect proof of permission from the copyright holder, not commentary from third parties (like the "new" Studio Harcourt).
  As he puts it, "In short, these images are clearly not naturally in the public domain. We haven't seen any evidence of them having been dedicated to the public domain (as opposed to Brouard's hearsay), and all indications from state sources seem to indicdate that such a dedication is, at best, extremely unlikely. Especially in light of the active and explicit claims by the owner (as identified by a court in a lawsuit), we can't accept hearsay like Brouard's as evidence of a permission grant.
  That's how I see it too; that VRT statement by a third party is not in any way an acceptable permission.

Rosenzweig τ 19:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: this seems to be a batch of files that will have a wide range of undeletion dates. Since you have lumped them into one nomination, how do you propose to keep track of when each may be undeleted? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: By years. Most already have a year in the file name, I'm in the process of adding years to the others (in the list above) and will also add undeletion categories. --Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll put a ton of undeletion cats on this one DR? Not how I'd have done it, but I guess workable. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: We have several such DRs on the books already, it's working. I'm done adding the categories (for photos up to the 1960s) and also the years in the list for files which didn't already have them. The years are primarily pulled from the file description pages, I didn't check every original source (some are gone anyway, like Ebay listings). A rather large number of photos are said to be from 1950, which suggests to me that there was a lot of guessing going on. Several photos are from later than 1953 and therefore not even in the PD in France, and some are even from the 2010s and 2020s, decades away from the end of the French 70 year term. --Rosenzweig τ 21:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are a few files which are {{PD-1996}} (noted above), they should be withdrawn from this DR. Also what about files which have a free license at source, i.e. File:Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, Duc de Broglie. Photograph by H Wellcome V0028118.jpg? Yann (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate any images which were clearly from before 1937, and only those are the ones which are definitely PD-1996. If a photo is said to be from the 1930s, that could be anything from 1930 to 1939, so not clearly PD-1996. Also, some were claimed to be from before 1934, which is hardly conceivable to be true when the studio was only founded in 1934. So the dates for those should be discussed and further investigated. As for the Wellcome Images, in 2014 or so they claimed all of their file were under a CC license, even images from the 1600s. If you look at the sources now, you'll see they claim that images are in the public domain (PD mark), but usually without saying why that should be the case. That applies to the Duc de Broglie photo you mentioned. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems there are pictures from before the creation of Harcourt in 1934, i.e. File:Serge-Heftler-Louiche HARCOURT.jpg. Yann (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I wrote above. Either those are Harcourt photos, then they can't be from before 1934. Or they are not Harcourt photos (maybe just the logo was added later), then they are not collective works and might still be protected in France. --Rosenzweig τ 22:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the explanation in File:Serge-Heftler-Louiche HARCOURT.jpg? These are {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} anyway. Yann (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it, people adding their earlier works to the new Studio Harcourt firm. The problem is, of the people mentioned there, the Lacroix brothers were publishers, and Robert Ricci was a business guy, they were not photographers. fr:Cosette Harcourt (1900–1976) was the only photographer in that group, and it looks like she had her first own studio in 1933 and was active as a salesperson for other studios before that. So the 1929 date seems rather doubtful. Unless we know about first publication, we don't know if "no author disclosure" actually applies or if it is a work by Cosette Harcourt. Or maybe even someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 22:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Wellcome could license public domain pictures under a free license. I have reviewed many files from them, and AFAIK, it is always the case. If you zoom in File:A. Cotton. Photograph by Studio Harcourt. Wellcome V0026218.jpg, it is clear that the Harcourt signature was added later. Yann (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see that Harcourt "sticker" in other images too. Wellcome still does not explain why the images would be in the PD. That would be obvious for images from the 1600s, but not for images from the 1930s or 1940s. --Rosenzweig τ 22:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Ten of) thousands of files were uploaded from Wellcome. Why focusing on Harcourt? I also found a file copied from Gallica, where it is said to be in the public domain. We usually trust GLAMs regarding licenses. Again, why focusing on Harcourt? The more I look at it, the more I think this is a very bad DR. For URAA issues, YOU have to prove that the files are affected, not the opposite. Yann (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: There were several files from Gallica, like File:Albert Duvaleix by Harcourt 1938.jpg. For that photo, the BNF currently states « Droits : Consultable en ligne » when viewing the page in French, “Rights : Public domain” when viewing the page in English, and there is no rights statement when viewing the page in German or other languages. We discussed this last year when discussing the Gallica license tags and agreed that any such statements by the BNF are not worth much, so the tags were deprecated.

As for Wellcome, “Why focusing on Harcourt?” Simple: Because this deletion request is only about photos from Studio Harcourt categories. I have discussed Wellcome images in other deletion requests like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edmond Sergent. Photograph by Genia Reinberg. Wellcome V0028022.jpg, where I have expressed doubts about the validity of their CC licenses as well. “We usually trust GLAMs regarding licenses”: If they are plausible. If not, they can certainly be questioned. We have deleted files uploaded by the Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) in 2008 because they showed artwork which we considered was not covered by the free license we had for the photo. And as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "August Rupp" which I started, the Swiss National Library conceded that I was right and the photos were still protected, and decided to remove the files from their web site until they are actually in the public domain in 2029.

As for URAA deletion requests, you have it wrong, there is no need to “prove” that files are affected. Per Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, it's the same significant doubt standard we generally use: “If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.” And I think I've demonstrated clearly enough that there is significant doubt here.

For one file, File:Irene Joliot-Curie. Photograph by Wellcome V0028146.jpg, I noticed that the right part of that file, showing Irène Joliot-Curie, was published in France in 1936 (File:Le Petit journal illustré Joliot Curie.jpg), so that part indeed does qualify for PD-1996. What about the other part showing her husband Frédéric Joliot-Curie? Do we have any precise year for that photo? --Rosenzweig τ 17:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I have restored some original comments with dates (which were taken from the image descriptions) and added your comment/estimates immediately behind them. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne comprends pas cet acharnement sur les photos du studio Harcourt. Le studio nous a officiellement cédé une partie de leur fond. Pourquoi aller leur chercher des poux sur le fait qu'ils auraient eu raison ou tort de le faire. En vertu de quelle connaissance juridique intervenez-vous? Avez-vous eu des plaintes venant des supposés ayant droits sur l'utilisation de ces photos? N'êtes vous pas en train d'inventer des règles de lois en fonction de votre subjectivité?

En lisant (hélas en anglais) les pages Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/07#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt, Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/09#Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992), je m'aperçois que ce combat de suppression est mené par user:Rosenzweig. Son acharnement, sa meilleure connaissance de l'anglais que moi rend l'échange très inégal. Le bon sens voudrait qu'on fasse confiance au ticket OTRS et qu'on ne réagisse QUE SI un cabinet de juriste exige la suppression de ces photos.

( In poor english Why are you so determinate about the deletion of pictures given by Studio Harcourt. Did Wikicommons receive complaints from somebody?. Are you a lawer ? May be you are making up rules that dont apply in those circumstances. user:Rosenzweig, who is the contributor who is fighting the most, is more concerned, more english fluent than me. The discussion is not fair. Common sense would be to trust OTRS and delete ONLY IF we receive complaints.)

HB (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HB: “to trust OTRS”: There is no OTRS to trust here because there is no VRT ticket releasing any of these photos into the public domain, just a statement from a third party. “and delete ONLY IF we receive complaints”: That is not how Wikimedia Commons works, and it is not how Wikipedia works either. Per COM:CARES: “Wikimedia Commons respects copyright and licensing restrictions regardless of whether copyright holders care about enforcing them. Uploading non-free media with excuses such as "the author won't find out", "the author would be glad that we redistributed their work", or similar statements is not how things work on Wikimedia Commons. We take copyright seriously; any image or media with questionable authorship may get nominated for deletion, and media uploaded without proper permission or licensing information may be speedily deleted.” --Rosenzweig τ 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Après étude plus poussée, je ne trouve pas la situation suffisamment claire : le nouveau Studio Harcourt ne me semble pas avoir un quelconque droit sur les photos de l'ancien studio Harcourt et ne peut donc les déclarer dans le domaine public. Ce fonds, clichés et négatifs, avait été vendu à l'État avant la reprise de société[112]. La médiathèque du Patrimoine et de la photographe qui possède ce fonds (et les droit patrimoniaux afférents) n'est pas clair sur la mise à la disposition en libre de droit de ses photos. Je comprends donc les doutes émis par Rosenzweig et Günther Frager. et supprime mon premier avis. HB (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour à tou(te)s,

C'est bien de l'archarnement, infondé et en contradiction avec les éléments, références et données déjà fournis depuis des mois au cours des différents débats.

Avec bien d'autres contributeurs (et administrateurs) francophones et français, nous avons pu mettre en évidence non seulement que ces photos datant d'avant 1992 ont bien été déclarées libres de droits par une responsable du Studio Harcourt d'une part (ticket VTR) et également nous avons démontré que RMN / Ministère de la Culture n'a pas le droit de revendiquer ou réclamer aucun copyright, concernant les photographies du Studio Harcourt.

Enfin, la référence publiée par l'expert et historienne spécialiste du Studio Harcourt, Françoise Denoyelle établit clairement que "les photographies Harcourt ne s'inscrivent plus dans une démarche patrimoniale à partir de 1992 (Ref : page 112 de l'auvrage de Françoise Denoyelle : Studio Harcourt, 1934-2009, éditions Nicolas Chaudun, Paris, 2009, ISBN : 978-2-35039-081-9). Ce type d'agissement pour demander la suppression en masse, relève désormais de la désorganisation de l'encyclopédie et de Commons.

Traduction : This request is indeed relentless, unfounded and in contradiction with the elements, references and data already provided for months, during the various debates. With many other French-speaking and contributors (and administrators) in France, we were able to highlight not only that these photos dating from before 1992 were indeed declared royalty-free by a manager of Studio Harcourt on the one hand (VTR ticket) and also we demonstrated that RMN / Ministry of Culture does not have the right to claim or demand any copyright, concerning the photographs of Studio Harcourt. Finally, the reference published by the expert and historian specializing in Studio Harcourt, Françoise Denoyelle, clearly establishes that "Harcourt photographs are no longer part of a patrimonial issue from 1992 (Ref: page 112 of the work by Françoise Denoyelle: Studio Harcourt, 1934-2009, Nicolas Chaudun editions, Paris, 2009, ISBN: 978-2-35039-081-9).

This type of action to request mass deletion now amounts to the disorganization of the encyclopedia and Commons. Tisourcier (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 VRT statement by the employee of the "new", current Studio Harcourt is a statement by a third party. It is not a valid permission or release for the photos we are talking about. Neither is a statement by a photo historian in one of her books. On the other hand, we do have a court decision clearly stating that the photos are copyrighted with the copyright owned by the French state. A court decision does have legal significance. Third-party statements do not. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These point have also been allready treated there :

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Tisourcier concerning Studio Harcourt.

Why would we want to call into question what has already been settled? Tisourcier (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have new evidence and a more in-depth analysis of previous evidence. --Rosenzweig τ 16:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, the most important point that was "forgotten" in this Deletion request is to démonstrate that claims from RMN / Ministry of Culture are legally not relevant. On December 17, 2014, this official information report filed with the National Assembly under number 2474, publicly reveals that RMN (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Ministry of Culture) commits multiple copyfrauds and that it is appropriate to put an end to them (page 42, proposal No. 9 of the official national publication, here) https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/rap-info/i2474.pdf. Using only partial declaration during a procédure is not a valuable element of proof that they own any copyrith on these photographs. Finally, despite what is claimed, it is clearly demonstrated that Studio Harcourt was never put into liquidation but only placed in receivership (redressement judiciaire), which allowed its takeover by new investors. Tisourcier (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat here what User:D. Benjamin Miller wrote in one of the VPC threads about this matter: “[...] the French government has a business selling copyright licenses. And all the Harcourt images on the French government-affiliated websites contain claims that the French government owns the copyright. You are correct to say that the government often overstates its rights. Where images are, in fact, in the public domain, we can ignore these overstatements. But this is an instance where the images could only be in the public domain if the government, after purchasing the rights, explicitly disclaimed them — there has certainly been no natural expiration of copyright. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the government would have done this, as it's inconsistent with not only their current claims on these particular photos, but also with the fact that they have have a business doing photo licensing more generally. I cannot find any instance where the French government has made any similar donation. Additionally, the French lawsuit which refers to the government as the current owner of the copyrights implies that the photos were not in the public domain at that time — which this does not prove that this hasn't changed since, we have no evidence for that.” --Rosenzweig τ 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are several instances where the French authorities purchase works and copyright, and release these works in the public domain. We have examples on Commons: Category:Photographs by Fernand Michaud. Yann (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those photos, the BNF currently states: « Droits : conditions spécifiques d'utilisation (sous convention BnF-ADM-2019-099996-01) » That does not sound like “released into the public domain”, or it least it looks like they're trying try to retract any such dedication. --Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they may try to retract an earlier decision, but once in the public domain, they remain so. File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpg license was reviewed. Yann (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite several debates in which at least ten of us demonstrated on Commons that the photos from Studio Harcourt dating from before 1992 were indeed declared copyright free (with VTR ticket), two or three contributors are still trying to have them removed hundreds of these photos. This is akin to a partisan hunt whose aim we do not really understand, other than to continue a tiring battle. It is time to put an end to this action. Sincerely -- Adri08 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong. There is no VRT ticket releasing any of these photos into the public domain, just a statement from a third party. --Rosenzweig τ 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. There is a VTR authorisation, so these photographs are rightly included here. If you don't think so, that's fine. You should discuss the matter with the VTR team instead of disrupting Commons for your own personal argument, which is prohibited by the project. Your conviction carries little weight here. --Madelgarius (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong. As explained above, there is no VRT “authorization”, just a statement by a third party. --Rosenzweig τ 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Madelgarius The VRT permission is for a subset of the photographs only. Ruthven (msg) 05:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, je ne saisis toujours pas le problème concernant ces images. Il y a un ticket VTR valide (à moins que Commons ait décidé que les Tickets avaient une date de péremption, celui ci n'a pas été annulé) émanant d'une représentante identifiée du Studio Harcourt. D'autre part le jugement Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 4 février 2003, 2001/17786 date de 2003, soit sept ans avant le dépot de ces image sur Commons par @Studio Harcourt: . Il n'est pas cohérent de conclure sur le statut légal des ces images, d'après une jugement de 2003 antérieure aux dépots sur Commons. En plus le jugement ne concernait pas le droit des images, mais le droit des marques, sur une utilisation litigieuse du logo Studio Harcourt par une société de production de disques. Toutes les images proposées à la suppression datent d'avant le reprise du Studio. On est dans un cas similaire de non renouvellement de copyright, dans le droit américain. Et à ce que je sache, les images de la liste n'ont aucun rappoort avec le jugement du Tribunal de 2003, à moins que @Rosenzweig: nous précise dans la dite liste, celles qui seraient concernées par ce jugement ? Kirtap (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are confusing things here. This deletion request is not about the 100 files uploaded in 2010 by User:Studio Harcourt, but about several hundred earlier photographs which were (in 1989/1991) sold to the French state, including the patrimonial rights (copyrights). There is no VRT ticket releasing any of these photos (not uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt) into the public domain, just a statement from a third party. --Rosenzweig τ 15:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Un autre preuve démontrant que Le Studio Harcourt détient toujours les droits de ces archives photographiques : l'entreprise a elle-même créé un compte officiel sur Commons et a versé non seulement des photos datant d'après 1992 mais aussi d'avant cette période, en indiquant précisément le détenteur unique des droits : "Studio Harcourt“ et non pas la mention RMN / Ministère de la Culture.

Abel Gance photograpié en 1957 :

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GANCE_Abel-24x30-.jpg

Ce simple fichier vient en contradiction formelle avec la présente requête de suppression de masse.

Traduction :

Another proof that Le Studio Harcourt still holds the rights to these photographic archives: the company itself created an official account on Commons and uploaded not only photos dating from after 1992 but also from before that period, indicating precisely the sole rights holder: Studio Harcourt and not refering to any credit for RMN / Ministry of Culture.

Abel Gance photographed in 1957: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GANCE_Abel-24x30-.jpg

This simple file formally contradicts the present request for mass deletion. Tisourcier (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That they uploaded this 1957 photo (and at least one other from 1980) under a free Creative Commons license (not a public domain tag) is indeed strange and worth questioning. But such incidents are certainly not in any way “proof” that the current Studio Harcourt still holds the rights to the photo archives of the old Studio Harcourt. And if they indeed would still hold the rights, that certainly would be a reason to delete the files listed above. You are contradicting yourself by the way, here you are claiming that the current Studio Harcourt still holds the rights to the old photos, and just a few paragraphs above you are claiming that these very same photos are in the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. I have a strange feeling of déjà vu. We're all losing our time discussing endlessly about these pictures and Studio Harcourt. No need to remind another time the same arguments, the previous comments do it better than me. The stubbornness of some editors is truly frightening, please focus on another topic. DarkVador79-UA (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. According to all given data and references. Tisourcier (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying we should even keep Harcourt photographs from 1968, 1988, 2017 and 2022 which are not even in the public domain in France? None of those were uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt by the way (none of the files in this deletion request were). --Rosenzweig τ 10:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Les contestations de la capacité des studios Harcourt à libérer les photos anciennes reposent sur des interprétations erronées.
  • La première erreur est de raisonner en termes de copyright alors que ce terme n'a aucune portée juridique en France, où le droit d'auteur est divisé en 2 : droits patrimoniaux et droit moral. Seul le détenteur du droit moral, un droit imprescriptible et incessible, a cette possibilité. [113].
  • Or des jugements en cour d'appel et en cassation en 2014 ont établi que le seul détenteur du droit moral était les studios Harcourt (et pas par exemple le photographe ayant pris des photos entre 1983 et 2008 pour lesquelles il réclamait des droits d'auteurs, impayés depuis 2006).
  • La question est donc : quels "studios Harcourt" ? Certains prétendent que cela ne saurait être la société actuelle, parce qu'il y aurait eu une liquidation judiciaire en 1991/1992 et qu'il s'agirait d'un "tiers". Or c'est faux, comme l'atteste le greffe du TC (qui n'évoque même pas un redressement judiciaire) pour les "Studios photographiques Harcourt", créés en 1980, et dissous en 1991 : [114]. Par contre, il semble bien qu'il y ait eu une liquidation de la société d'origine en 1968. Peut-on en conclure que les studios actuels auraient perdu ce droit ? Bien malin qui saurait le dire, puisqu'il n'y a aucune jurisprudence sur ce sujet, le droit français considérant, en contradiction avec le jugement de 2014, que seules des personnes physiques peuvent disposer de ce droit moral. Beau sac de noeuds juridique, et il n'est pas certain que les contributeurs de Commons aient la capacité de juger un point qui ne pourrait être tranché que par la justice française, si jamais elle est appelée un jour à se prononcer sur ce point. Ce qui est pratiquement certain, par contre, c'est que ce droit moral n'appartient pas à l'Etat français, qui a acheté les négatifs (et qui selon certaines sources, serait détenteur des droits patrimoniaux au-delà de sa charge de gestion du fonds).
  • Plutôt que de se livrer à des interprétations personnelles, il serait donc sage, jusqu'à contestation éventuelle, de s'en tenir aux déclarations du studio Harcourt (en la personne d'Agnes Brouard ) , déclaration conforme à l'analyse d'une historienne indiquant que ces photos étaient libres de droit.
  • PD ou licence CC ? Ce point est en effet à clarifier, mais cela ne justifie pas une suppression.

  translation DeepL : Challenges to the ability of the Harcourt studios to release old photographs are based on erroneous interpretations.

  • The first error is to reason in terms of copyright, a term that has no legal scope in France, where author's rights are divided into 2 parts: patrimonial rights and moral rights. Only the holder of moral rights, which are imprescriptible and non-transferable, has this option. [115].
  • However court of appeal and cassation rulings in 2014 established that the only holder of moral rights was Harcourt Studios (and not, for example, the photographer who took photos between 1983 and 2008 for which he claimed royalties, unpaid since 2006).
  • The question is: which ‘Harcourt studios’? Some people claim that it could not be the current company, because its predecessor went into receivership in 1991/1992 and would be a ‘third party’. But this is not true, as the court registry (which does not even mention a receivership) attests for ‘Studios photographiques Harcourt’, created in 1980 and dissolved in 1991: (" ne possède pas, à notre connaissance, de Procédures Collectives"). However, it does appear that the original company was wound up in 1968. Does this mean that the current studios have lost this right? Hardly anyone can say, since there is no case law on the subject, and French law considers, in contradiction with the 2014 ruling, that only natural persons can have this moral right. This is quite a legal mess, and it is not certain that the Commons contributors have the capacity to rule on a point that can only be decided by the French courts, if they are ever called upon to rule on this point. What is almost certain, however, is that this moral right does not belong to the French State, which bought the negatives (and which, according to some sources, holds the economic rights beyond its responsibility for managing the collection).
  • Rather than indulging in personal interpretations, it would therefore be wise, until an hypothetical dispute arises, to stick to the statements made by the Harcourt studio (in the person of Agnes Brouard), a statement that is consistent with the analysis of a historian indicating that these photos were free of copyright.
  • PD or CC licence? This point should be clarified, but it does not justify deletion. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pa2chant.bis: You seem to be writing mostly about the moral right, which is roughly the right to be named and identified as the author of a work. But this deletion request is not about the moral right. It is about the economical (or patrimonial in French) rights and if the files can be “used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose” (Commons:Licensing). So most of what you wrote is not even relevant for the deletion request. And doing nothing based on the dubious 2020 statement (see above) unless and until a complaint comes is (see COM:CARES) NOT how Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia work. --Rosenzweig τ 17:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's you interpretation, not mine. I guess it was you who spoke about à 'third part' ? --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Seconding DarkVador79-UA here: the amount of time and efforts wasted on what mainly appears to be a personal argument spearheaded by a single person is staggering. Time to move on. --Alecto Chardon (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rappel : Concernant le ticket VRT (#2020112910005534 pour File:Marcel Vaucel.jpg), la déclaration de la directrice en charge de la valorisation des collections du Studio Harcourt, madame Agnes BROUARD, confirme clairement sans aucune ambiguité le statut libre de ces photos : « Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. » . (traduction : "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now the property of the Ministry of Culture, preserved by an entity called the Media Library of Architecture and Heritage and distributed by the RMN-Grand Palais photographic agency. This photographic collection is not subject to property rights, so anyone who has a portrait from the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet.". Tisourcier (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed anove (see the section about this 2020 statement), this is not in any way an acceptable permission, especially as it is not coming from the owner of the patrimonial rights (copyrights). It is just hearsay from a third party. --Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop to say that Studios Harcourt are a third party, as this idea is supported by false "facts", as explained below and as only french courts of justice are subject to rule on it. And please try to consider what people explain to you, that quite nobody agrees with what looks like more and more as a personnal fight. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the current Studio Harcourt is a third party. They are not the original company who sold the photos to the French state. They are a new company, established in 1992 (see [116]), which has bought the name and brand of the old Studio Harcourt. This was extensively discussed and demonstrated in the two threads at the Village Pump Copyright, linked at the beginning of the deletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 07:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig. Your point of view is wrong. According to French laws, only the "commercial exploitation" could be conceided to Ministry of Culture in this cas but never the "copyrights". RMC-Ministry of Culture is knowne as copyfraud maker for a long time. Constantly trying to repeat your same weak arguments that have already been questioned many times is not proof that your point of view is correct and valid. Tisourcier (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this is about the commercial exploitation, or patrimonial rights or however you want to call it. I don't think anybody here is trying to deny that a Studio Harcourt is still to be named as the author (moral rights). I've already discussed the "copyfraud" argument above. That they (the French state or one of its subdivisons) may overstate their rights in some cases does not mean that what they say is automatically wrong and the opposite is true. And we still have the 2003 court decision explicitly saying they do own those commercial rights. --Rosenzweig τ 10:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nomination and previous discussions. There is evidence that the patrimonial rights were transferred to the French government when they acquired the negatives and there is no explicit evidence that the French government surrendered such patrimonial rights. The VRT ticket that is mentioned in discussions is from an employee of a company established after the transfer of patrimonial rights and therefore lacks any legal binding like normal VRT tickets where the copyright holders make a statement about their property. Günther Frager (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a large number of files on this page have HTML comments along the lines of "1968 ok per [https://www.photo.rmn.fr/archive/08-539564-2C6NU0T5V7M1.html]". These are not visible when the page is displayed. They are not signed, and there is no indication of whether they represent a consensus decision on the particular photos in question or are just one person's opinion. Would someone please clarify the status of these before any action is taken on the basis of this DR? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all from me (and I can sign them if that is considered necessary). I noticed that the years in the file names were not always correct and proceeded to check them. 1968 ok per ... just means that the given source URL indeed says this photo is from 1968. If the year differs, I wrote something like "actually 1969 per ...". --Rosenzweig τ 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig:

1. So OK just means you've confirmed the year, not that it is "OK" to keep the file? You might word that differently.
2. Why is this all commented out? Either it's a useful part of the information on this page or it isn't. Leaving it so that it is only visible when editing the page seems to me like falling between two stools.

Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking several hundred files took a while, so the comments were useful to see what I had already checked. But I didn't want to clutter up the visible text, so I hid them. I'm done checking now, so I've chosen to remove the confusing hidden comments confirming the years. They're still accessible via the DR's version history if someone wants to look at the source links I used to check the years. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Procedural close as this includes files with 5 different situations:

1. Pre-1937 files which are in the public domain both in France and in USA.
2. Files from a free license or in the public domain at source (most from Wellcome). We usually trust GLAMs regarding licenses.
3. 1937-1953 files. PD-France. You have to prove for each files that URAA applies, which can't obviously be done in a mass DR like this one.
4. 1954-1991 files. These could be deleted if there is a consensus that the declaration by a person responsible for managing copyright is not sufficient.
5. 1992-now. These should probably be deleted.

This is customary that mass deletion requests (impacting many files with different issues) should be avoided. --Yann (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]