Commons:Deletion requests/File:Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Portrait Herbert James Gunn.jpg
Painting is copyright Herbert James Gunn, who died 55 years ago. Firebrace (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The painting meets the criteria to no longer have copy right though. Nford24 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Copyright in UK is life of the author plus 70 years. The painting may or may not have been Crown copyright (we don't know what the agreement was between the painter and his subject), but even if it was, Herbert James Gunn also retained his copyright, i.e. the painting had two different copyright statuses. Now that the Crown copyright has expired (assuming it was), the author's own copyright expires in 2034.
- I am surprised it has taken more than two years for anyone to nomiate this for deletion, as similar photographs and paintings have been speedy deleted in the past. The uploader must be very popular... Firebrace (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. In the UK, prior to 1989, copyright in a commissioned portrait was held by the commissioner, not the creator.[1] As a commissioned state portrait,[2] this work would fall under the rules for Crown copyright in force at that time, and now be in the public domain.--Trystan (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- See https://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/commissioned-works#1912
On or after 1 July 1912 until 31 May 1957: The 1911 Copyright Act contained similar provisions to those in the 1956 Copyright Act (described above). In the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait where the work was ordered by a third party and paid for with money or its equivalent, copyright remains with the person placing the order, unless there is agreement to the contrary.
- Two problems here. We don't know if there was an agreement to the contrary or not. We also don't know if Herbert James Gunn was paid money or its equivalent. It has been said, in previous nominations where the image was deleted, that artists would often paint or photograph the Queen for free to enhance their profile as an artist. Firebrace (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination It is clear that HJG was not a Crown employee, so the question falls on whether he was paid for the work or not. As pointed out above, often portraitists would work for the monarch for free just for the publicity value of having been chosen. Our standard of proof is "significant doubt". I think a significant doubt exists here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
