File talk:Robert Smith Barry.jpg

This file had an uncertain copyright status and was changed to Fair Use. You can read the comments on its change here.

From user:81.156.144.242

I believe that the photo is public domain as a Crown Copyright photo taken prior to 1958.
I suspect that the photo was originally Crown Copyright which has indeed expired, and is not subject to either a 100 or 75 year rule after death, since governments never die (unfortunately).

This is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia, and regardless of where the servers are located, the photograph (if the photographer's copyright) is subject to English copyright laws with copyright expiring after 75 years. British contributors uploading from British territory are subject to British laws on copyright. Not some misguided application of US laws. Where a photograph falls out of copyright in its country of origin, and enters the public domain, it cannot be outside the public domain in any other country. And BTW, here in the UK we recently noted the death of the last veteran (including war photographers) of World War 1, a conflict for which the US arrived rather late, as they did for Round 2.

There can be no doubt that the unknown photographer located on a secure military base is indeed dead. Assuming the photographer to be of minimum military age (say 17) were he still alive he would now be aged 110 years. And as is so very common amongst those who served their country in war, the photographer's precise identity, or date of death will never be known. That is precisely why we pay our respects to the Unknown Soldier every Remembrance Day. BTW, how many war artists and photographers died in WW1?

What is known though, is that the photograph was taken on a secure military base, the airfield at Gosport, Hants, and that could only be done with official permission, therefore the copyright was in fact originally Crown Copyright, to which rather different rules apply, putting the photograph firmly in the public domain as a photo taken prior to 1958.

There is a wider issue here though, having noted the user page of the original uploader, and his retirement from Wikipedia, having been discouraged from contributing further to Wikipedia. Contributors are real people. They are flesh and blood, and like all people can become discouraged by ill-considered chastisement, when a word of advice or encouragement could produce a better result. As a teacher, I would have thought that the tagger would be aware of that. Discouragement of genuine contributors, defined as those contributors attempting to improve the quality of Wikipedia, although sometimes making mistakes, as distinct from vandals, is a very real problem on Wikipedia, and although I do not believe the person who contributed the tag intended harm, he/she should think hard about his/her broader responsibilities to encourage and educate, rather than merely chastise. 81.156.144.242 (talk)

Summary

Robert Smith Barry (right) with his then Commanding Officer F. F. Waldron, in a picture taken at Gosport in 1916 when they both formed 60 Sqn RFC. Waldron was later killed over the Somme.

Picture scanned by me Ian Dunster (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC) from the Not THE Smith Barry article in the July 1984 issue of Aeroplane Monthly magazine and uncredited.

Licensing:

{{PD-old}}

• Note - if it was taken in 1916, I doubt that the photographer has been dead 100 years yet. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Copyright in the UK is 75 years not 100 and AFAIK there is no UK PD tag in the drop down box. Anyway, as the immortal saying goes, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. Ian Dunster (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• The reason that there is no UK PD tag is that the Wikipedia servers are in the US, and subject to US law. The requirement is, therefore, that the photographer has been dead 100 years. However, even if you're doing it on the UK basis (and this is just hypothetical, of course!), you seem to be assuming without basis that the photographer died during or before 1933... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the photo is public domain as a Crown Copyright photo taken prior to 1958.

I suspect that the photo was originally Crown Copyright which has indeed expired, and is not subject to either a 100 or 75 year rule after death, since governments never die (unfortunately).

This is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia, and regardless of where the servers are located the photograph (if the photographer's copyright) is subject to English copyright laws with copyright expiring after 75 years. British contributors uploading from British territory are subject to British laws on copyright. Not some misguided application of US laws. And BTW, here in the UK we recently noted the death of the last veteran of World War 1, a conflict for which the US arrived rather late, as they did for Round 2. There can be no doubt that the unknown photographer located on a secure military base is indeed dead. Assuming the photographer to be of minimum military age (say 17) were he still alive he would now be aged 110 years. And as is so very common amongst those who served their country in war, the photographer's precise identity, or date of death will never be known. That is precisely why we pay our respects to the Unknown Soldier every Remembrance Day. BTW, how many war artists and photographers died in WW1?

What is known though, is that the photograph was taken on a secure military base, and that could only be done with official permission, therefore the copyright was in fact originally Crown Copyright, to which rather different rules apply, putting the photograph firmly in the public domain as a photo taken prior to 1958.

Discouragement of genuine contributors, as distinct from vandals, is a very real problem on Wikipedia, and although I do not believe the person who contributed the tag intended harm, he/she should think hard about his/her broader responsibilities to encourage and educate, rather than merely chastise. George.Hutchinson (talk)

Can we please have a copyright tag that is accurate? J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)