Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sri aurobindo.jpg
There is no evidence of where or when this photo was first published. 1900 is too late to simply assume that the author has been dead for 70 years. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Sri Aurobindo (1872 – 1950) was 78 when he died. This man doesn't look 78 years old. Old age photos, but undated, of his are here and there is huge difference in these two pics. So the snap is definitely few years before 1950. To be out of 70-years scope, it has to be before 1944. So is it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but you do not understand the applicable rules. Seventy years after creation (which your comment uses) is the applicable law in only a very few places, none of which seems probable here.
- If the image was first published in India, then Indian law applies and anything before 1958 is PD. However, there is no evidence that it was first published in India.
- If it was first published in most other countries, then the rule is 70 years after the death of the author. Unless we know the date of death of the author, we generally assume that an image less than 130 yeas old is still under copyright -- that allows for an author who made the image at age 20 and lived another 60 years, dying at age 80. While that is not an extreme case, it seems reasonable.
- In some other countries, including the United States, still different rules apply.
- Without evidence of where it was first published -- the country of origin -- we must assume the worst case, so this image from around 1916 is 30 years too recent to be kept.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but you do not understand the applicable rules. Seventy years after creation (which your comment uses) is the applicable law in only a very few places, none of which seems probable here.
Comment the first image is from a portrait, the second image is scanned from a book. The colour of the image from book is aged, and it is reasonable to assume that it was published pre 1923 (later publications don't seem to pick up that colour tone). Further, the original image upload is dated here 2006, which is of an age that we have grandfathered images that lacked full data.
For me on the balance of probability, it was published in India (and it is not reasonable to assume anything else for the subject matter, and with many of this person's books being published in the 1950s, 1940s and earlier in India) and with India's 50 years copyright, this pretty well ensures that this is out of copyright. To note that I have asked the contributor of the later scan to identify the book that was used for the scan. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Further to note, that his books all seem to be published by Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment more...: My previous comment was based on my assumption that such portrait images are assumed by us to have been commissioned. Ownership of images commissioned is with the subject and not with the photographer, whose whereabouts are not known. I might be wrong in this assumptions. Do correct me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn -- it appears to be beyond a significant doubt that this was first published in India. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)