Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert Einstein (Nobel).png

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Albert_Einstein_(Nobel).png

Picture is copyrighted in Sweden (source country) by the Nobel Foundation (see nobel.se, Einstein page). Eusebius (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 Keep {{PD-Sweden}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the official photograph of the Nobel Prize. You really think the photographer "cannot be traced"? Note to self: always read the licence templates entirely. I'm sorry that you must always look for my mistakes! --Eusebius (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept. Eusebius (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Albert Einstein (Nobel).png

There is several doubts about the original publication of this photograph in the U.S. 83.61.243.178 00:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep US copyright law only cares that the image was public domain in the host country prior to 1996. The website says: "Copyright © Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2022" for the page of text, not the image, which is PD. --RAN (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

   Keep per @RAN's reasoning, which I shares too. 83.61.243.178 02:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Keep If this is the official 1921 Nobel Prize photograph of Einstein, we have to assume publication in 1921, and then it's old enough to be in the public domain in the US per the Hirtle chart, the first entry under "Works First Published Outside the U.S. ..." applies, as it was published before 1927. The URAA doesn't matter in this case, it's blanket PD due to the date of publication, and so I'm going to change {{PD-1996}} to the more appropriate {{PD-US-expired}} in this case, as per the Hirtle chart. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that it was in July 1923 that Einstein could go to Sweden for his official Nobel lecture related to the prize awarded to him in 1922 for the year 1921, the photo could be more likely from 1922 or 1923. Could it be published in the Nobel Foundation book Les Prix Nobel en 1921-1922, Stockholm, published in 1923? It could be interesting to know, if someone can have access to a copy. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree also with @Gestumblindi's reasoning, which I also share too. Sincerely, I opened this DR because this user demanded proof that it was published in 1921. Thanks both Gestumblindi and @RAN dilligences. I also agree with  Speedy keep it. Best regards. 83.61.243.178 03:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

We could, however, discuss the status of the photograph in Europe. It is certainly in the public domain in the US, as it's unreasonable to assume that first publication was later than 1921 (or 1922/23 at the latest, as Asclepias says), but in Europe, it could still be protected by copyright if the name of the photographer is known (not necessarily available at the immediate image source) and they died less than 70 years ago. You edited the licensing yesterday to use {{PD-anon-70-EU}} instead of {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, and {{PD-anon-expired}} instead of {{PD-US-expired}} (which I had applied). But we do not know whether the photographer is really anonymous. That the name of the photographer is not currently known to us at Commons and not mentioned at the immediate source for the photo doesn't mean that they never acknowledged their work, that's the general dilemma with these "anonymous" templates - in theory, we need proof that the author never disclosed their identity and that it is not recorded in some archive or the like. PD-Sweden-photo, therefore, would be a safer bet if the photo is from Sweden. But we don't know that either. Even if it was used in 1921 in Sweden by the Nobel Committee, it hasn't to be an originally Swedish work. That photo could very well be from Germany, for example. So, I change my vote to  Weak keep and think that another admin should close this with a well thought-through decision if we can keep the photo after all, and if yes, which templates to apply. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: After read your comment, I agree with your reasoning. It is possibly that the anonymous status could not be more than a suppossual status, or which is the same, not currently known to us. For that I'd partially undid my last change to use only the {{PD-US-expired}} tag, until we're able to found which is the real copyright status in Sweden, or in all the EU or, ideally, in both cases. I think it would be the most appropiate license according with the current case, but please, if you find I'm wrong, please correct me, you're more than welcome to do that. Also, I will modify my vote to  Weak keep instead of the standard keep. 83.61.243.178 11:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the best guess is a publication in 1923 in Stockholm in the Nobel publication Les Prix Nobel en 1921-1922. If it is the image that was used by the Nobel Foundation, that's a logical publication where it would have been published. I couldn't find that particular issue online, but if we look at the previous issue, Les Prix Nobel en 1919-1920, published in 1922, (the second half of this archive.org file) although the A. B. Lagrelius & Westphal pictures of the laureates are generally used rectangularly, there is occasionally an oval one, such as the picture of Bordet between pages 126 and 127. If we compare the oval version of the photograph of Einstein, including the studio mention and the signature of the laureate below the image, it certainly does have the look of a Les Prix Nobel style of page of that era. There's always some possibility that it could have been published earlier or be a reproduction of an earlier photograph but, if there's no indication of a previous publication, 1923 seems probable. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Asclepias: Your reasoning is really convincing. However, would be also possible that the current author (A.B. Lagrelius & Westphal) is no the photographer of the original photograph, but a previous publisher?. For example, we have this file in the National Portrait Gallery (London), which the original photographer is (possibly, according with the NPG) Horace Walter Nicholls (1867-1941), and was published by Underwood & Underwood company. Or this one, with author uncredited, published also by Underwood & Underwood. So it's probably that this could also happen with this photograph, in the case it was "credited" to A.B. Lagrelius & Westphal in Les Prix Nobel en 1921-1922 (if was published there). 83.61.243.178 12:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A. B. Lagrelius & Westphal are also credited for most photographs for those Nobel Foundation publications. They could have reproduced this photograph from elsewhere, but it seems reasonable to assume that they created it, in the absence of any indication to the contrary. Photographs from other sources are credited to other sources. Although the photographic plate must have been rectangular, the oval version seems the fullest printed copy and so the version closest to the original. The smaller rectangular versions are more cropped. Also, A. B. Lagrelius & Westphal has been the mention in the .jpg version of this image on Commons for 13 years. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Kept: per discussion. --Krd 06:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)