Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg

File:Maurice Henri du Croo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jcb as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted according to source: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/boeken/view?coll=boeken&identifier=MMKB35:169335000:00008 Yann (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably in the public domain in the source country. However copyright in USA is uncertain. Yann (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this would be anonymous work, so the normal precaution of 120 years applies per {{PD-old-assumed}} for works where we don't know when the author died. 120 years have not yet passed since 1951. Can be undeleted in 2072. Jcb (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no author mentioned at the source. Yann (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which qualifies as unknown, not anonymous. Dutch copyright law only has a provision for anonymous, not for unknown. Jcb (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are playing on words. When an author is unknown for everybody, then he is anonymous. Yann (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, anonymous is when an author publishes something without making themself known. Not if we, 75 years later, somehow can't find it out. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was published without the author's name. Q.E.D. Yann (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction doesn’t exist in the Auteurswet. Art. 38(1) doesn’t use the word “anoniem” at all — it applies to a work “ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat”. What matters is what’s indicated on or in the work, not whether the photographer intended to stay anonymous/hidden. MKoot (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jcb. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Dutch copyright: "Copyright only expires 70 years after the death of the (last) creator. If a legal entity can be regarded as the creator, either because the work was created in the course of employment (Article 7 of the Copyright Act) or because the actual creators have not been identified (Article 8 of the Copyright Act), the shorter term of 70 years after first publication applies. This shorter term also applies to works 'in respect of which the creator has not been identified or has not been identified in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt', according to Article 38(1) of the Copyright Act, unless the creator has subsequently made himself known (Article 38(3))." Quoted from page 12 of a report by IVIR (Instituut voor Informatierecht of the Universiteit van Amsterdam / Institute for Information Law at the University of Amsterdam).

Article 38(3) clearly states that if the creator discloses his identity before the expiry of the term referred to in the first paragraph (70 years after publication), the duration of the copyright on that work shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 37. That period of disclosure has now expired, without anyone claiming rights, given that the photograph was published in 1951. - DonCalo (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No shred of a doubt: this photograph is in the Public Domain in the Netherlands according to Dutch Copyright Act, Art. 38.1. ("Het auteursrecht op een werk, ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat, vervalt door verloop van 70 jaren, te rekenen van de 1e januari van het jaar, volgende op dat, waarin de eerste openbaarmaking van het werk rechtmatig heeft plaatsgehad.") User:Jcb keeps banging on the same drum over and over again, but the drum skin is missing. Vysotsky (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the slightest shred of evidence that the photographer did not disclose their identity on publication. E.g. there is even no information on what may have been on the backside of the picture. For this exact situation we created {{PD-old-assumed}} with its 120 years term. Vysotsky knows that quite well, but keeps ignoring it. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Negative fact cannot be proved. This is a strawman argument. Yann (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even better: I looked at every detail. Apparently Jcb didn't take a glimpse at the source. I did. The source is a book. (Title: In memoriam Maurice Henri du Croo. S.l., 1951. I browsed through the complete book to check if the photographer of this photo was named (pages before and after the photo, colophon, "backside of the picture", the lot). Nope. Vysotsky (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exactly! Thank you dear Yann, Vysotsky and others for taking this matter seriously and actually examining the source. These repeated nominations by Jcb are becoming a real nuisance. I could upload a file with 'copyright free' written across it and he'd still find a way to nominate it for speedy deletion... If someone keeps beating the same drum, perhaps it's time to ask whether they should still be holding the sticks. Goran.Mont (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vysotsky: What copyright info did you find for the book, then? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a self-published, s.l. (sine loco i.e. without a stated place of publication), 'in memoriam' booklet containing several contributions by different authors and reprints of newspaper articles. As I explained on Jcb's talk page, the copyright tab on the source page, which hosts the digitised version of the complete book and which I provided as the source for the upload (https://www.delpher.nl/nl/boeken/view?coll=boeken&identifier=MMKB35:169335000:00008), states the following:

Is er geen naam vermeld of staat er bijvoorbeeld 'van een van onze verslaggevers', dan ligt het auteursrecht bij de uitgever. Het object is dan beschermd tot 70 jaar na publicatie. Is er wel een naam vermeld, dan ligt het auteursrecht bij de (erfgenamen van de) maker(s) en is het auteursrecht geldig tot 70 jaar na het overlijden van de maker(s).

Translated: If no author's name is given, or if the work is credited as 'by one of our reporters', the copyright belongs to the publisher. In that case, the work remains protected for 70 years after publication. If an author's name is given, the copyright belongs to the author (or their heirs) and remains in force until 70 years after the author's death.

In this case, as Vysotsky noted, no photographer is credited anywhere in the publication. Since the booklet was published over 70 years ago, that was the basis for my assessment that the photograph is in the public domain. Goran.Mont (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting remarks and questions. 1) Jcb has every right to beat his drums as many times as he likes. It's just a pity that it's such a waste of everyone's time, as many of his deletion requests aren't based on a good understanding of the Dutch Copyright Act (esp. of Art. 7, 8, 9 and 38). 2) Re copyright of the book according to Dutch copyright: This book consists of 11 contributions by diverse authors (Th.A. van Oort, J.W. Meyer Ranneft, J.K. den Heyer, Cor Ruys, Cor van der Lugt Melsert, Johan Luger, Stef Kleyn, W.G.N. de Keizer, H.A. Korthals, E. Elias, P. Chambille de Beaumont) -25 pages, with added songs and poems by Hans du Croo (40 pages) and 2 photographs. Some of the 11 contributions are under copyright, some are Public Domain. All works by Hans du Croo (about half of the book) are Public Domain. The 2 photographs are Public Domain according to the Dutch Copyright Act, Art. 38.1. Vysotsky (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vysotsky: And the URAA? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When all means fail, use the URAA stick! Vysotsky (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was paraphrasing Yann's "copyright in USA is uncertain" and adding a reason. URAA is the law of US land. Commons obeys US law. Files have to be free in the US for Commons to host them, or have other justification like use in userspace by a legitimate user. This file is not free in the US and has no such justification, therefore we cannot host it. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a reason? Rather a fallacy. If a photographer is unknown, who could go to a US court to claim copyright of a Dutch pre 1951 photograph? But please go ahead. I guess I like the dedication of the Internet Archive better than the actions of some people at Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps I should move on if I favour open access. Vysotsky (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding URAA. Commons is not legally required to proactively delete files based solely on potential URAA status, as per Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. A theoretical U.S. copyright should not automatically override open access, especially when a file is indisputably in the Public Domain in its country of origin. Use carries no legal risk whatsoever, especially given the fact that with the Dutch copyright expired and the author unknown, there is no legal entity in existence that could ever claim infringement or bring a suit in a U.S. court.

Besides, does this standard, simple portrait photograph intended for formal biographical record in an ‘in memoriam’ truly pass the threshold of originality set in the Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. decision? If not, that would mean it is unprotected in the U.S. anyway, regardless of the URAA. Goran.Mont (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a single copyright case where a photograph was made by a human and is not a simple copy that wasn't treated as copyrighted in the US? It is my understanding that a human pointing a camera and snapping a photograph is generally enough for US law, much less a professional photographer setting up a portrait photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Any passport and ID photos lack the required originality to qualify for copyright protection, it’s mentioned in Commons:Threshold of originality and explicitly stated in Section 909.1 of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (Chapter 900). Your comment on the photographer is speculative. The booklet was self-published by people acquainted with Du Croo, and the photograph shows no signs of artistic direction. It lacks individual character.

And besides all this, the argument of complete absence of legal risk remains. No legal entity exists that could claim infringement or bring a suit in a U.S. court. Retaining this file poses zero risk to the Foundation. Goran.Mont (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The word "passport" is not found on Commons:Threshold of originality and neither COM:TOO United States nor Commons:TOO say such a thing.

As for 909.1, it says: "The Office receives ten applications, one from each member of a local photography club. All of the photographs depict the Washington Monument and all of them were taken on the same afternoon. Although some of the photographs are remarkably similar in perspective, the registration specialist will register all of the claims, because each photographer selected the angle and positioning of his or her photograph, among other creative choices." Yes, it says that some individual character is necessary, but its example makes clear just how low that is.

The fact that we don't know who owns the copyright to this work doesn't mean it is uncopyrighted or that no legal entity exists that could sue about it. It's on the lower end of concern, but if we're going to start handwaving stuff like this, I think it should be more than just a discussion here.

(And may I note that I find your cites of Commons:TOO and the Compendium to be concerningly inaccurate. Your sources literally don't say what you claim they say.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly copyrighted under US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“as long as a copyright holder exists and is capable in principle of enforcing their rights, we must either obtain a free license from them or be conservative and exclude the work” as per the URAA page. The point here is that no such entity exists, so URAA is moot.

It should also be noted how valuable this picture is to have on here, because this photograph does not surface through any ordinary search engine. If it disappears from

Wikimedia it effectively disappears from the public eye.

Jcb has a history of reporting photos with faulty arguments on the topic of the history of Dutch theater. I (and others) have won almost all appeals for photographs apart from a few under URAA. But in this case there is no legal entity that could enforce URAA so this falls outside the scope of the precautionary principle, as per Wikimedia’s own rules. MKoot (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MKoot: Please back up that first sentence with evidence. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is a quote from Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. MKoot (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that no such entity exists? It's property, so it doesn't just go away when the owner dies. Any day, one of the photographer's heirs could realize that this image is being used on Wikipedia without permission and come poking around.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a realist scenario. First it would be very difficult for the heirs of the anonymous author to prove that their ancestor is the author. Then 70 years have passed, so, in the source country, the heirs could not come and claim a copyright. And then you think they could come and claim a copyright in USA? This looks more like sci-fi than a possible legal situation. Yann (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be very difficult? There could well be documents, receipts, etc. filed in a trunk somewhere. They can make a DMCA claim or demand for payment from anywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. A trunk of receipts wouldn’t actually show any proof of ownership. But even with a signed negative and a notarised family tree it wouldn’t matter. Art. 38(3) of the Dutch Copyright Act only converts the anonymous/unknown term to life+70 if the maker discloses their own identity before the 70 years run out. That happened on 1 January 2022. Heirs can’t do it for him. And there’s no publisher to fall back on because it was self-published (without disclosing place or colofon). So under Dutch law this work does not and can never have an author again.

This is why the URAA line is closed. §104A(b) puts the restored copyright in the author or initial rightholder as determined by the law of the source country, but Dutch law says they do not exist. That is why no rightsholder exists and no one is capable in principle of enforcing their rights. There is no legal path to there being one.

The cases where someone was able to use URAA (which are discussed at Wikimedia) were all cases where the copyright holder was established in the source country (but then the copyright lapsed in the source). MKoot (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah for URAA. In 10 years time we will have local Commons repositories in all language Wikipedias, to have a safe haven for works by so called "URAA artists" removed from Commons. Germany is taking the lead: see this image, earlier deleted from Commons and now hosted on the German Wikipedia. (Painter died in 1953; painting dates from 1939). If someone wants to use this image in the Japanese language Wikipedia, she has to make sure it is locally uploaded there too. So the image might be hosted in ten "local" Wikipedia's, probably on the same server as the one that once hosted the Commons image. I know it's all juridically safe and sound, but it's nonsensical nonetheless in a digital environment. Vysotsky (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin on the English Wikisource, and we have to upload works all the time locally instead of on Commons because despite that fact that they're entirely free for me and the WMF, they're not free in some jurisdiction that Commons cares about despite being legally irrelevant. There's works I haven't dealt with because it's a lot easier to upload huge PDF files to Commons than to local wikis.

Germany did really take the lead; if they hadn't extended copyright to life+70, the EU might not have followed their lead and the US wouldn't have been pushed to extend copyright with the justification of following the EU. That painting would be out of copyright in the US except for that, that and the fact that the EU and other nations made such a fuss about our copyright laws that the US had to put all the URAA works back into copyright.

Having them on one server and not on Commons is nonsensical, but I lack patience for people who think we should care about life+70 (even without legal necessity) and not about the law that Commons is jurisdictionally bound to. The legal situation is a pain, but it is what it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]