Commons:Deletion requests/Artworks in the MOMA

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Artworks in the MOMA

[edit]

This deletion request is about the following images from Category:The Museum of Modern Art: Image:Calder, josephine baker, moma.JPG, Image:Inside MOMA NY.jpg, Image:Joe colombo, boby 3, portable storage system, 1969, moma 01.JPG, Image:Joe colombo, boby 3, portable storage system, 1969, moma 02.JPG, Image:MOMA Rietveld house .jpg, Image:MOMA Rietveld house.jpg, Image:MOMA chairs 1x.jpg, Image:MOMA chairs 2.jpg, Image:MOMA chairs 3.jpg, Image:MOMA chairs 4.jpg, Image:Marcel duchamp, ready made, moma.JPG, Image:New York 231.jpg, Image:Oppenhei, moma.JPG.

The authors of these artworks are not dead for more than 70 years, so these images are a copyright violation. Chaddy (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it's sculpture, it is allowed to take pictures of tridimensional works (check i.g. Category:Fernando Botero) --Sailko (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover the furniture is design, not work of art, so it's allowed to take pictures, otherwise we would not have any pictures of cars unless their designers died more than 70 years ago! --Sailko (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the furniture you maybe could be right, but not with the sculptures. The scupltures in Category:Fernando Botero are only allowed because of freedom of panorama (FOP). But because these sculptures in this case are in the MOMA (not in the public) FOP is not possible. Chaddy (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no problem. FML hello 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete artworks. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. The sculptures must be deleted. Furniture and other functional designs could be kept. Mangostar (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also if there would exist "freedom of panorama" in the United States, these images would be not ok, because they are taken inside of a building. Chaddy (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In some countries, freedom of panorama does extend indoors, at least in premises open to the public (including museums). The UK and Mexico I think are examples, and there are others. In the U.S. though, this is not the case for sculpture, so some of the above images should be deleted. However, many of them are "useful articles" (furniture) and are not copyrightable in the first place, so those photos can stay. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, here are my votes for keep or delete:
Delete These appear to me to be of sculpture or other artwork:
Keep These are "useful articles", and so are not copyrightable. If they have a "separable" design on the surface, that design may be copyrightable in itself, but that is not the case here.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least the cairs in the picture Image:New York 231.jpg are surely art. Chaddy (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, don't think so, at least not per U.S. copyright law. They are still chairs, which are useful articles. An element must be "separable" from the chair (such as a design on the surface, which could be done on any surface, not just the chair). I don't see any in those chairs. One applicable case is Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., where a company modified a wire sculpture and made a bicycle rack. Another company started selling a similar rack, and the first company sued on copyright grounds, and lost. The dividing line was whether the functional requirements constrained and guided the design, rather than being a freeform piece of art. Since it did, it is industrial design, and not copyrightable artwork. There are probably other similar cases which have gone the other way, so it may be arguable, but it would be an uphill argument (especially concerning photos of the chair as opposed to similar chairs made by someone else). They could be protected through design patents, but that protection would not extend to photographs anyways. The U.S. has considered adding a "design copyright" which would protect things like this, and other countries may have it, but the U.S. Congress considered but did not enact it (with the exception of boat hulls, of all things). Even if it was added, this type of copyright would not have extended to photographs of the design, just manufactured goods which copy the design. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep furniture. In the photos no particular chair is in a central position. The photos are panorama views of intallations prepared my the museum. Even if one chair would be under a form of copyright that would extend to photograps (a position that was refuted above) it could not extend to photos of multiple chairs by multiple designers. In fact Keep all. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, i quote "saiko"
The phrase "the copyright expires after 70 years after the death of" refers to the author of the image, not the author of what the picture shows. If I make a photo and is protected by copyright is covered photography is not what is in the picture, therefore ( for example) if I photographer a bottle of coca cola is not that the rights of my photos go to the coca cola company -.- --Pava (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the things shown in an image are protected, you may not photograph them, otherwise the image would be a copyright violation, because it´s a reproduction of what is shown in it. The copyright holder e. g. of the artwork in these cases don´t own the rights of the images but the rights of the artwork. Chaddy (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can photograph them, but (as you say) if they are derivative works of the item being pictured, you cannot use your photo beyond what fair use allows. Some countries have laws which allow photographs of copyrighted works in some situations (see Commons:Freedom of panorama) but in the U.S., sculpture is not one of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete artworks, Keep chairs. See the comment of Carl Lindberg. --Kolossos (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting artworks, keeping useful articles, per Carl Lindberg, with the exception of Image:Oppenhei, moma.JPG which I have deleted as a pure artwork (based on a useful article, yes, but not in the least useful in this incarnation). MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Artworks_in_the_MOMA&oldid=539443672"