Template:Did you know nominations/Adolf Dobrovolný

Adolf Dobrovolný

 * ... that in August 1924 Adolf Dobrovolný presented commentary of the first broadcast sports event in Europe on Czech Radio – a heavyweight boxing match?
 * Reviewed: St. Henry's Catholic Church (Harriettsville, Ohio)

Created by Aloysius (talk). Self nominated at 20:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg It will be a long answer but the problem requires explanation in detail. The photograph is not free. I base this on several separate but interlaced facts.
 * The photo was published in Ottův divadelní slovník (en:Otto theatrical dictionary) in 1919 by Karel Kamínek and Karel Engelmüller in Prague in Austria-Hungary.
 * Austria-Hungary had already signed a copyright treaty with the United States, which thus applies here as well. It states "The term of the copyright protection granted by the present Convention shall be regulated by the law of the country where protection is claimed)". Text of the Convention here.
 * Austria-Hungary was dissolved in 1920. Austria and Hungary are successor states. Karel Engelmüller became Czechoslovakian citizen.
 * Ministry of culture of the Czech Republic claims he is a legal successor of Czechoslovakia including copyright treaties.
 * Hirtle chart states: "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. On Commons these cases also need to be free according to copyright terms in the country of publication."
 * According to the List of countries' copyright lengths Austria, Czech Republic and Hungary all has a life +70 years copyright protection.
 * Karel Engelmüller died in 1950. Picture will be free in 2020.


 * Until its removal this nomination can not proceed. I aslo recommed removing it from the article as it is currently linked from commons and fair use images shouldn't be stored there but rather in Wikipedia.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  12:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Nevertheless I have to disagree and justify the free copyright. Regardless to the historic mistakes (in 1919 Czechoslovakia already existed; Austria-Hungary dissolved in 1918) the reasons for the free copyright are these:
 * Karel Engelmüller was just the succeeding editor (not the author) of the encyclopaedia started by Karel Kamínek, the instigator of the idea who died in 1915. After his colleague's death Karel Engelmüller worked only with the material which Karel Kamínek had gathered and that is why the encyclopaedia ended in letter G…
 * Karel Engelmüller was not the author of the photographs (not even Karel Kamínek). In the introduction it is written that there are portraits of the performing artists made according to their photos and in the next paragraph it is stated that the "collecting" of the material was the main work of the editors. The author of the photograph is anonymous (there are no signatures or initials in the book which was published in parts)
 * In the Copyright Law of the Czech Republic (Zákon č. 121/2000 Sb.) this eventuality is explicitly resolved in § 27 c) which says and you can google translate: "Majetková práva k dílu anonymnímu a pseudonymnímu trvají 70 let od oprávněného zveřejnění díla. Je-li pravé jméno autora díla anonymního nebo pseudonymního obecně známo nebo se autor takového díla veřejně prohlásí (§ 7 odst. 2) v průběhu doby podle věty prvé, řídí se trvání majetkových práv k takovému dílu podle odstavce 1, a jde-li o dílo spoluautorů, i podle odstavce 2. Ustanovení tohoto odstavce se použije i na kolektivní dílo (§ 59), s výjimkou případů, kdy autoři, kteří dílo jako takové vytvořili, jsou u díla nebo na díle při jeho zpřístupnění veřejnosti jako autoři označeni; v takových případech se trvání majetkových práv ke kolektivnímu dílu řídí ustanovením odstavce 1 nebo 2."
 * It means that when a book is a collective work where the names of all authors are not expressly mentioned the lenght of the copyright is counted in the way: publishing date + 70 years.
 * The year of publishing the part with Adolf Dobrovolný is 1919 so the photo has been freely usable since 1989.Aloysius (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I'd still say no. (for the record Austria-Hungary was dissolved with the Treaty of Trianon in 1920. Czechoslovakia could have declared its independence earlier in 1918 but international recognition which counts otherwise it's two countries "overlapping" each other)
 * Your argument on point (1). Coathors count the same as author. Even if his task was editing it together. But as I saw he's credited as author and not editor.
 * Photographs can't be taken out of the copyright this way. If there's no "courtesy of..." text under the photo then it could still have been bought by the book author, which then became his property. If the photographer didn't insist his name credited somewhere then it is the author of the book (or the one who published it first) who has the copyright onwards. Second case scenario let's suppose that most of the photos is made by Kamínek/Engelmüller and they didn't label each one with "photo taken by me". Some of them still could have been collected photos but how do you differentiate them? But even if only one photo is taken by the book author himself how do you pick that one out? From that point on it's not that all of them are anonymous since the book author has his name on the book. What you quoted doesn't exclude these possibilities. The intro and the law neither. As Google translator goes: "the duration of property rights to collective part governed by the provisions of paragraph 1 or 2" How do you know which part was collective? Or how can you say that every chapter of the book is collective? Maybe it's only the translation I can't judge that.
 * Also you have to make 100% sure that the photo wasn't published before the book. Saying that its author is anonymous just because the book doesn't have credit in it is too trivial for one simple reason: The copyright scene at the time was more chaotic but nowdays it isn't so we have to post-fix that. So if Kamínek/Engelmüller got the photo from someone else's publication one should track it down before it's out of question anonymous. But I give that only a slight chance just worth mentioning knowing the circulmstances of the pre-WWI era.
 * I'm not sure about the collective work either but anyway I tend to believe you on two conditions. First I and everyone else in Wikipedia needs a better source for the copyright law you quoted. business.center.cz is not an official source. My links I gave above are all from government sites. Second I need a fully trustable reference for the background of the making of the book. You told a story but I and others would need a reliable site that verifes that it happened as told (collective work, Engelmüller marginal involvement, photos were given to them for free). I know you said most of that is mentioned in the intro of the book but it's a primary source and such a famous book should have a third party review somewhere. I want to go for sure before depriving someone of his or his children's copyright. I might sound a bit picky but that's the interest of everyone's involved including Wikipedia. If you are not fully convinced of a PD status don't nominate that picture. Although I'm ok with other editor overruling me if he has a good reasoning.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  23:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me recap what I've said in a nutshell with this example. This is Tennisz és golf a Hungarian tennis magazine from 1930 edited and published by Béla von Kehrling tennis player (d. 1937).
 * Pic of Miklós Horthy on cover is part of the article written by Béla von Kehrling, interview made by him, his copyright. Free pic.
 * Pic on page 69 is not taken by him because it depicts him. Article is written by a pseudonym author. But Béla von Kehrling was there and is still the employer. Free pic.
 * Pic of René Lacoste on p.72 is obviously a cut-out picture from an international magazine. Possible stolen pic (era-specific problem!). Not free until original publication is cleared.
 * A better example, which I tracked down recently (and thus not uploaded it) from the same magazine different edition. Pic of Jean Borotra on p.64 is stolen from Lo Sport Fascista p.127 published the same year in 1929. As always the bigger photo is the original. Copyright was in its infancy back then and every uploader's responsability to dig deep in each case.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4. Pic (architect sketch) on p.81 is under the copyright of architects Déli and Faragó as noted. Not free.
 * All within the same old magazine

WorldCat has both Karel Engelmüller & Karel Kamínek as authors. Highly trustable third-party source. Case dismissed.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice and it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries). ''All points should be met and it wasn't free in 1996 in its home country either. Note that File:Moscow State University crop.jpg has different - architect laws - to be applied on.''
 * The same for me - I will accept any decision of a third wikiparty. Here are the two conditions you mentioned: source of the law from the government portal and from Wikisource ; and here are two front pages of the parts of the encyclopaedia I scanned - first is the volume No.1 published in 1915 where it reads "za součinnosti Karla Engelmüllera rediguje Karel Kamínek" (trans. with cooperation of Karel Engelmüller edited by Karel Kamínek) and the second is volume No. 22 from which is the photo and the citation is "s použitím zůstavené části rukopisného materiálu Karla Kamínka rediguje Karel Engelmüller" (trans. using the left over manuscript material by Karel Kamínek edited by Karel Engelmüller)  - the word rediguje in Czech literally means he edits, redaktor means editor. As for the dissolution of Austria-Hungary I think the Treaties of Trianon and Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) were just de iure confirmation of the dissolution in 1918 recognized by both Austria and Hungary in October, resp. November 1918.Aloysius (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you take my advise you remove the pic from this very nomination because it will hold it back for a while. Only experts could clear this up to be allowed to pass without a doubt. BUT - and here's the productive part of my advise - let's move this issue to wikicommons and ask for community resolution there. I'll guess it'll be quicker and after it you'll be able to nominate as many photos as you want from that book afterwards if it proves to be PD. As I comprehend you own this book and I guess you are willing to nominate more people biographies based on it. Consider it.   Lajbi   Holla @ me  •  CP  11:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Assuming 1919 publication is correct, this image is definitely PD in the US. As such, the image can be uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia and used as such. It should be deleted from Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not true by default. As Hirtle chart states: "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. On Commons these cases also need to be free according to copyright terms in the country of publication". This is the same chart that claims it's free in the US if published before 1929. But also it is needed to take into consideration that the chart doesn't include Austria-Hungary (nor this list, which had a one-on-one contract with the US signed in 1912 where they also guarantee each other's copyright authority. I guess it means an exception to the rule. So the two criteria has to be simoultanously met, which in this case they don't. But I agree with you and said earlier in the conversation that it's okay to have it in Wikipedia as fair use, but fair use photos are not allowed to go to the opening page. Since you used a question symbol I hope this answer is sufficient for you.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  10:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lajbi, I didn't say Commons. I said the English Wikipedia, which only requires that works be free in the US (I also did not say anything about Fair Use). Compare featured pictures such as File:Moscow State University crop.jpg (FOP), or the template PD-URAA, or the category Category:All free in US media. Yes, you are correct that this is not free in the country of origin (and as such should not be on Commons) but it is still free enough for the English Wikipedia. See Non-U.S. copyrights, particularly "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Whether with image or without, I don't see any sign that the article itself has been given a full DYK review, so that still needs to be done by someone. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My usually bullish head gives in:-) To make way I've removed the picture from the article (it can be seen on Commons . It was 80 years from Adolf Dobrovolný's death two days ago and I think he deserves the DYK mention. Thanks for any other review.Aloysius (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to remove the image from Wikipedia, just from Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see this case meeting the last point of PD-URAA.

I didn't gave a full review (although I checked the article throughoutly) because there was a copyright obstacle in the first place. So here it goes. Article was created on 1 January 2014‎ with 2,115 characters. OK. Hook is 149. OK. Česko-Slovenská filmová databáze (Czech-Slovak Film Database) is a reliable source for the hook. Hook is interesting regarding the world premiere-fact.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)