Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 29

< December 28	December 30 >

December 29

File:Bush portrait on 1DEC2018.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait of George H. W. Bush is copyrighted B dash (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No, it is not. Unlike the official portrait of Bush by Herbert Abrams, which is copyrighted, the portrait that appears in this photo was painted by Ronald N. Sherr — a contract employee of the United States government — in the course of his official duties as very clearly and unambiguously indicated in the Other Information section on the file page and linked here (https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.95.120?fbclid=IwAR35to2W_-Psnx4WFwT7ymL4cLC1g2avG7HW-JvmFhJTQHmFiuFuRLk_BEo). The portrait is, therefore, a PD image and the photo of the portrait is as well. Chetsford (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chetsford: That does not appear to be correct. Please note that "contract employee" and "employee" are world's apart when it comes to copyright law. If you are a statutory "employee", then anything you do is a "work product" for your employer and your employer owns the copyright. If you are a "contractor", then you are actually self-employed and you own the copyright to anything you create, unless you specifically have a contract that assigns the copyright to the company/entity that engaged your services. The page you linked says that the portrait was commissioned by the National Portrait Gallery and subsequently purchased. Nothing about that sounds like a work product and so the portrait is indeed copyrighted. Hypothetically, if the copyright was TRANSFERRED to the federal government (and nothing here indicates that it was) then the government could choose to publish it under an acceptable license. But none of those things have happened. --B (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as delete, but re-opening was requested at my talk page. To keep this image it would need to be demonstrated that either (a) the artist's contract designated that this was a "work for hire" (in which case the underlying photo is public domain) or (b) the copyright was transferred to the federal government (in which case the derivative work was created by the copyright holder)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, B. It'll be about a week before I can get to this but I appreciate keeping it open in the interim. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B - I apologize, however, I realistically won't have time to get around to this for a bit longer and probably was overly optimistic in the timing I communicated in my above statement. I'm sorry I've unintentionally ended up being a huge drama queen about this, however, out of a preponderance of caution perhaps you could just (re-)delete this and then I can address the question to you directly in a few weeks? Thanks for your (extreme) patience. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]