Commons:Deletion requests/File:Autobiography-of-a-Yogi.jpg

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:Autobiography-of-a-Yogi.jpg

Copyrighted image, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry for the long post, but bear with me. It looks like Tat Sat made a mistake with tagging the image. It was scanned by Tat Sat, but it is not his work - it is the cover of the first edition of the book Autobiography of a Yogi, published in 1946 by Philosophical Library. I have been involved on and off with a dispute relating to this image on the English Wikipedia, so I have become quite familiar with the copyright issues involved. The following is a list of points relating to image's copyright, which I actually drew up earlier, but hadn't posted it anywhere before this - it didn't seem to be necessary because of how events unfolded. Here it is:
  • The book cover is a derivative work of the photo File:Paramahansa Yogananda.jpg. The book is in the public domain, but because because the book cover is a derivative work, that doesn’t affect the copyright status of the photograph itself. (We should probably add this photograph to the deletion request as well.)
  • The photograph features prominently in the book cover, so it cannot be claimed as de minimis. Therefore, we need to prove that the photograph itself is in the public domain before it can be allowed on Commons.
  • We don’t know who the photographer is, and therefore we don’t know who the copyright originally belonged to.
  • Some aspects of the copyright are clarified from a lawsuit that went on between to rival churches, the Self-Realization Fellowship and the Ananda Church of Self-Realization. This lawsuit was over who owned the copyright to the works of Paramahansa Yogananda, the author of Autobiography of a Yogi and the subject of the photograph. A court document from when the case went to appeal is available on Wikisource. Per this document, if the photograph was taken by an SRF employee, the copyright probably belonged to SRF; if it wasn’t, then the copyright probably belonged to the photographer.
  • Yogananda was living in California, and Autobiography of a Yogi was published in New York in 1946. From this, it seems that US copyright law likely applies.
  • The photo was probably taken at some time in the few years leading up to 1946, so it is quite possible that it is still protected by copyright.
  • The lawsuit says that the copyright of photos taken by people other than SRF employees doesn’t belong to the SRF; it doesn’t say anything about whether they are public domain, however. So we have to assume that the photos are still copyrighted, either by the original photographer or their relatives, or by the SRF, unless we can prove otherwise.
  • Judging from the Hirtle chart, the photo could be in the public domain if any of the following apply:
    1. It was published without a copyright notice (but not if it was registered within 5 years)
    2. It was published with a copyright notice but the copyright was not renewed
  • We know that the SRF filed to renew the copyright of the book; it seems likely that they also filed to renew the copyright of the photographs. (Can we check this?)
  • It was found in the court case that the SRF weren’t eligible to renew the copyright of the book or of photographs not taken by SRF employees, but it seems they may have been eligible to renew the copyright of the photographs that were taken by SRF employees.
  • The photograph was published as part of the front cover of Autobiography of a Yogi in 1946. It is not known whether it was published previously to this as well.
  • The copyright notice in the original edition of Autobiography of a Yogi was "Copyright Yogananda", not the SRF.
  • We don't know whether or not Yogananda himself, or his relatives, tried to renew his copyrights.

To sum up, it seems that the photograph may be in the public domain, but there are simply too many things that we don't know for us to be able to say for certain. We need to know a) who the photographer was, b) where it was taken, c) whether the copyright was renewed, and d) whether the photograph was published before it appeared on the book cover. I am no copyright expert, so I could well have made an error in my reasoning. Please tell me if there is something that I have missed! Unfortunately, though, at the moment it looks like this image needs to be deleted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I just realised I forgot to mention an important point - according to this site, the SRF acquired the rights to Autobiography of a Yogi from Philosophical Library in 1953. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• The book is in public domain: meaning its cover and content: text, photographs and illustrations. Many free editions and publications of the book are currently available in many countries around the world. If the book was not in public domain, a facsimile of it would not be sold at amazon.com. After so many years if the book was copyrighted the owner of the copyright would prevent the publication of the book. You can ask any expert in copyrights, Mr. Stradivarius. It is funny that the SRF´s copyrighted cover is being used. Please do not delete the file without someone proving the book is copyrighted -- which is not. Thank you. 187.13.88.133 16:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, the book is definitely in the public domain - that is clear from the court document I linked to above. This means that the Philosophical Library (and by extension the SRF) do not own the copyright of the book cover. However, the problem is that the book cover is a derivative work of the photograph on the cover; just because no-one owns the copyright of the book cover doesn't necessarily mean that the photograph on the book cover is also not copyrighted. To find out whether the photograph is still in copyright or not, we need more information. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for your quick answer, Mr. Stradivarius. Perhaps we should need more information to prove the cover is not in public domain, not the inverse because the information I provided in the post above that I do no want to repeat here (the facsimile of the book: its cover, text, illustrations and photos - are free for download everywhere for many years now and is also commercialized at amazon.com, Barnes & Nobles etc.). Best regards. 187.13.88.133 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment That's not the way things work here. Commons cannot afford to include copyrighted material, so stuff can only be kept if it is shown unambiguously that it is in the public domain. In case of doubt, we have to assume it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume2303 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 October 2012‎ (UTC) (UTC)

  PS I could upload the image again claiming fair use, as Red Rose did with the copyrighted cover by SRF, but this would be unnecessary since the book (its cover and contents) is in public domain. I will be very grateful for your help. 187.13.88.133 18:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not copyrighted image: File:Autobiography-of-a-Yogi.jpg. Legal decision is about old magazines photographs

To further clarify this imbroglio about the book being in public domain but not necessarily the cover nor the photographs and illustrations, which is a falacy spread to baffle good faith editors, I will post the last decision of the lawsuit which regards the false allegation the cover of the book is not in public domain. Please check this legal decision. The doubts are about photographs published in old magazines, not in the book Autobiography of a Yogi which first edition cover was wrongly marked for deletion: As you can see, here are two links - among many - to online facsimiles of the Autobiography of a Yogi. The publishers - who has not been prosecuted for copyright violation - state the book is in public domain and offer the book for free download (including the use of the original cover:

1. The publishers states the book is in public domain.
2. Free download by Holy Books.

I am sorry for the length text but please bear with me for this is important to clarify that the issue about the photographs were published in SRF´s maganize as you can verify, not in the book. There is no mention of the photos nor the cover of Autobiography of a Yogi which was already ruled to be in public domain without any doubt, since 1991, due to a lack of renewal of the copyrights. Please verify the legal decision about the lawsuit Self-Realization Fellowship versus Ananda this information, since you recommended not only the cover but photographs that are in the book should be deleted. I quote:

"29 - The final category of works in which SRF claims valid copyrights are not works by Yogananda but rather photographs of Yogananda and another religious leader, taken by various third parties and published in SRF's magazine under its blanket copyright. For four of the photographs, SRF can identify no known photographer as the author. A fifth was taken by a man identified only by his name, Arthur Say, while the remaining photographs were taken by SRF employees Clifford Frederick and Durga Mata. The district court rejected SRF's claims that the photographs were taken as works for hire or by a corporate body, and held that SRF had not introduced a triable issue regarding assignment." Thank you and forgive me again for the long post, but this is relevant information. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Kept: {{PD-US-not renewed}} Yann (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)