Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko

No indication of early enough PUBLICATION as required for items to the public domain in country of origin (Russia) under Russian law. The sourcing of these is all insufficient - books published after the cut-off date, cached jpgs lacking file information, websites that do not provide the publication information we seek, and even RIA Novosti. None have sufficent sourcing information to meet Commons standards. (Regardless of how old these photos are/whenever they were created, under Russian law they MUST have been published early enough, and there is no indications of early enough publications in these files)

• File:Anton Chekhov reads The Seagull.jpg

  The photo was taken in 1898, by a Russian photographer who died in 1925. Here is an early printout of the photo [1]. It has a caption written in old Russian alphabet, which was abolished in 1917, i.e. the photograph was printed and distributed before 1917. Materialscientist (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't matter how early it was taken. We need early enough PUBLICATION.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Published, e.g., in S.D. Balukhatyi, Chaika v postanovke Moskovskogo Khudozhestvennogo Teatra (Moscow, 1938)[2]. Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawn on that photo. Although that information should have been present in the file description beforehand.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Chaliapin F. (Шаляпин Ф. И.) 1916 with Nemirovich-Danchenko and students.jpg
• File:Grave of Nikolay Gogol 1909.jpg
• File:MAT original company 1899.jpg

  The photo was taken in 1899 in Russia, and re-published abroad in a 1947 book [3], i.e. 70+ years ago, and there was most certainly an earlier publication. Precautionary principle says "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted". This is definitely not the case here. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well then, the 1947 book should be noted clearly, and it should be tagged as PD in Russia but not the US.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is noted in the image file. As to all your other replies, I presented evidence of distribution, on this page and in the image files. Per Russian copyright laws and Commons policies, distribution of a photograph is equivalent to publication. Materialscientist (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Your standard of "distribution" is rather vague and unprovable. The burden of proof is on the uploader to clearly prove it meets Commons publication requirements. Expecting users to know about forgotten distributions of a photo that you won't specify any further information about an didn't even mention in file sourcing is propostreous. On Commons we must stand by the clearly established publication dates for precautionary reasons. An item merely being autographed does not render it published under copyright law.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Nemirovich detail small.jpg

  See discussion of File:Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko 1922.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Nemirovich detail.jpg

  See discussion of File:Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko 1922.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Vladimir Nemirovich Danchenko.jpg
• File:Vladimir Nemirovich Danchenko3 (cropped).jpg

  See below.

• File:Vladimir Nemirovich Danchenko3.jpg

  The uncropped photo (see original upload) was distributed in 1896, which is sufficient for keeping it on Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "Distrubited?" Show evidence of your claims. We must know the where and when because copyright rules vary based on location and time. Also, the evidence that it meets standards of early enough publication are quite flimsly. Just because it was signed doesn't mean it was published early enough in line with copyright expiration requirements.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko 1919.jpg
• File:Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko 1922.jpg

  The photo was distributed in 1922. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarify. By what means? Source just says a 1987 book. That's too late. Can you show the 1922 distribution (ie, leaflet, pamphlet, flyer) and put it in the description?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See original upload. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, Late 1930s.jpg
• File:Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko2.jpg

  The uncropped photo [4] was signed and distributed in 1898-1899, which is sufficient for keeping it on Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarify. Where was it distributed? What exact date?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Exact date and place are not essential in this case. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. We must know the where and when because copyright rules vary based on location and time. Also, the evidence that it meets standards of early enough publication are quite flimsly. Just because it was signed doesn't mean it was published early enough in line with copyright expiration requirements. All we know for sure is that it was published in a 1957 book. Everything else is hearsay.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me repeat my point: this copy of the photo [5] was signed in 1898-1899 and given to Chekhov. Another print of the same photo [6] (note different background) was exhibited in a museum. So there is evidence of distribution. Materialscientist (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A photo being autographed in private does not equal legal publication. As for the musem display, you should have noted that in the "source" section of the file if you didn't want it to get nominated for deletion. Please include DETAILED, CLEAR, PUBLICATION (where and when) information in your file descriptions. We are not mind readers here. If you don't note the publication, you can't expect other people to know about it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The creators of them were participats to the Eastern Front wars, and their copyright terms in Russia has extended for more 4 years. Maybe restore-able in 2024. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Kept those with evidence of actual publication; deleted others. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural listing. This file was tagged for deletion with the same rationale, but never included in the nomination above. ƏXPLICIT 12:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]