Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Bush Hounds of Love (1985 EMI publicity photo) 02.jpg

File:Kate Bush Hounds of Love (1985 EMI publicity photo) 02.jpg

Neither whether the image is still copyrighted in the US nor whether URAA applies is the main issue. The main issue is authorship and its country of origin. EMI America is an American division or entity of the parent UK company, EMI. It may not have been an American work but rather British. Guido Harari may have photographed the photo, but it must have been a work for hire. Under the UK copyright, the photo is still copyrighted and has seventy years after first publication (1985) or author's lifetime. If the former, then copyrighted till 2056. George Ho (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep The publication was EMI America, so it stands to reason the country of origin is the United States, regardless of the nationality of the author (Italian). It matters where the photograph was published, not the nationality of the author, or even where the company is from. It only had to be simultaneously published in the U.S. (within 30 days) for the US to be the country of origin. If someone finds a version of the photo from well earlier in the UK, that could matter. The only concrete evidence we have is of US publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As for work for hire, probably not (at least in the US). But likely a commissioned work, and copyright ownership probably came down to the contract. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep First published in the USA; that is the country of origin (based on available evidence). Does not meet copyright formalities from the time - no notice or registration within 5 years. Fell into Public Domain. An example of what a photo with a proper notice should look like to be copyrighted: [1]. PascalHD (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Clindberg and PascalHD: How about a 1985(?) Japanese magazine using the photo in full colour? Unsure about a 1985 fanzine. Sure, Harari may have made loads of photos of her wearing a hat, like another one seen in this Japanese ad. The photo came as part of a press kit, meaning it was probably for promo use initially? (May not have been public?) The earliest stamp date I see in one of copies is January 1986, and unsure whether this copy confirms it.

  It matters where the photograph was published, not the nationality of the author, or even where the company is from. The law probably begs to differ. Re-reading the UK law, country of origin may mean one of several things. When the photo was first released, Japan and the UK were still members of the Berne Convention. If you assume that the photo was first released in the US, and it wasn't simultaneously released within thirty days afterwards in Japan, the UK, or Italy, then as an artistic work, let's take "the country of which the author of the work is a national" rule insistently.

  In other words, Harari was/is a citizen of Italy. I cannot tell, per COM:Italy, whether the photo was "simple" or "artistic". Artistic photos' copyright last longer than simple ones'. Or, the EMI America (if an author) was founded by the British parent company, EMI, and EMI America may have still been a British entity technically. The UK copyright might last until 2056. Still unsure whether either Italy or the UK is the "country of origin" as defined by assumption that the US is the first country where released and no simultaneous release was made in either of both countries within thirty days after. —George Ho (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  In the US, the photo is a US work not subject to URAA restoration unless it was first published in a foreign country and not published in the US within 30 days. Publication made in both the US and another country does not make this not a US work. When a work was first published in the US (which includes simultaneous publication), the nationality of the photographer and where the publisher is based are irrelevant.

  Yes, another country may consider itself the country of origin. A photo might be considered a US work under US law, but a UK work under UK law. On Commons, we treat works simultaneously published in the US as US works. See {{Simultaneous US publication}}. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  @George Ho Just to answer specifically; Hounds of Love the album was released in September 1985. The press kit would have been published around that time, likely before, to promote the album. The photos contained inside the US EMI press kit are different than the UK EMI press kit. I’ve noticed this to be common amongst other press kits/record labels as well. The fanzine magazine example is using the UK photo which is not the same one that has been uploaded. Only one is that Japanese magazine clipping, which also lacks a convincing date to really see which came first. I would believe that the press kit is the first instance of publication. PascalHD (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm... The photos from the UK press kit contain copyright notice crediting "EMI Records (UK)" as the claimant. Still wonder why EMI America omitted the notice in photos from the US press kit. George Ho (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Italy, Japan, and the UK were US's treaty parties at the time of the photo's release. Still reading the 1976 Act or USC Title 17 again. George Ho (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is not what UK copyright law thinks; rather, it is Commons policy to respect the copyright law of the country where an image has been first published, and additionally Commons is legally obliged to respect American copyright law. From the point of view of American copyright law, the photograph has to have been published in the US no more than 30 days after its first international publication to count as a domestic work, which would have been placed in the public domain due to a failure to observe copyright formalities. Felix QW (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  The Berne Convention text states what the country of origin is. The UK definition is pretty much from the treaty, though they make sure that anything simultaneously published in the UK is treated as a domestic work (the country of origin rarely matters, except for countries which use the rule of the shorter term). That's only true within the UK. Nationality of the author etc. only matters with unpublished works, which is clearly not the case here. The US is a Berne member now. If it was simultaneously published in multiple countries, the country of origin is the one with the shortest term -- which I think would be the US, though could get "interesting" if published in other places too depending on how some questions are interpreted (but would remain PD in the US). There are always lots of theoretical possibilities -- maybe it was first published in Canada. The UK fanzine you found is a different photo (same session). The Japanese one is the same photo with a tighter crop (so did not publish all of this version), though the color version is likely not PD in the US. If that was more than 30 days before the US, yes it would change things. EU law would protect the work (since it's by an EU author) regardless of what the country of origin is, so it's 70pma there. The UK likely would too, even if it was not simultaneously published in the UK, as they would protect US works for their own term due to the old bilateral treaty with the US. So the copyright would exist in many places in the world; usage elsewhere would be risky. We don't delete over theoretical possibilities though, just significant doubts. As with anything, if more concrete information comes to light, it can always change things. The precise dates of that Japanese publication may matter. Not sure that is enough for a significant doubt at this point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  The US wasn't a Berne member when the photo was released. It later joined the Convention four years later. Unsure whether the UK law would take that into account. George Ho (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, but are you suggesting that the U.S. can't be the country of origin for any works created before it joined Berne? Or can the country of origin change when countries join? They are a member now. The UK law is not relevant -- just the Berne text and interpretation, since that is how Commons defines the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep Any work that was first published in the US, or published in the US within 30 days of publication abroad, has the United States as its country of origin (under the URAA test used in US copyright law). Whether or not some other countries might also treat this work as a domestic work is irrelevant.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Am I too late to withdraw this nomination? BTW, I'm hopeful that someone else would prove others wrong, but I don't guarantee that such occurrence will come around. George Ho (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)