Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ammonite reconstruction.jpg

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.

File:Ammonite reconstruction.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama for 3D works in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is "in the Houston Museum of Natural Science ", not in Italy, have a look of the category!--Bramfab (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC) the original request!.[reply]
Ok, but same problem.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Artwork: A work of art, artwork, art piece, piece of art or art object is an aesthetic physical item or artistic creation. A scientic reconstruction is not a sort of artwork.--Bramfab (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, it is. Scientific illustration and sculptures are copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PLease indicates USA law references, I don't find any reference about that on [2] you indicated.--Bramfab (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See under the header "Artworks and sculptures". FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under the heading there is nothing (or at least I am not able to see) talking about any " scientific " stuff, and finally a scientific reconstruction is not a sculpture , at least in an educated mind sculpture involves creativity, but a rigorous scientific reconstruction exclude creativity , otherwise it is a fancy stuff, not scientific . So , again I ask you indicate the US explicit regulations (sorry, not your opinion ) establishing that a scientific reconstruction is a kind of work of art. In fact this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/has been not put on deletion, spite of the fact taht it is another reconstruction present in the same museum, (just different hall), (even if the exibit is not indicated in Commons).
In addition there the advise: Exhibit in the Houston Museum of Natural Science, Houston, Texas, USA. Photography was permitted in the museum without restriction. in this file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Declivolithus_alfredi,_Late_Ordovician_(Caradocian),_Mecissi,_Morocco_-_Houston_Museum_of_Natural_Science_-_DSC01538.JPG with a photo from the same museum! Without restriction! --Bramfab (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, a rigorous scientific sculpture does not exclude creativity at all. It is a field called "palaeoart", which you should read about to see how much artistry there's involved. In any case, yes, the artists own the copyright to their sculptures, they're not in the public domain. Anyhow, if a museum permits photos, it does not mean the photos can be used for any purpose, and that's what the FOP law covers. In such countries, taking photos of something copyrightable does not give you the copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The object in this photograph is not "paleoart", with which it shares just the theme "animals extinct for millions of years."
I add that it is not art, but a simple scientific reconstruction made by museum staff. However I find that this cancellation request seems vitiated by antipathy towards this photograph:
Initially it is requested for deletion as an object in 3D Italian.
When pointed out that it is not 'Italian, but American, the initial motivation is changed and the object becomes an artistic product, even a "sculpture" and is claimed to be a scientific illustration copyrighted. Asked which law or court ruling assimilates a scientific illustration to an artworks is answered without citing the law (of course as there) but repeating the slogan "Artworks and sculptures". At that again one explains that science and creativity are not obviously associated, unless there is an explicit reference to the law that makes this' and it is required again an indication of the law, not to stay in the personal opinion.
In response finally the next object in 3D becomes a refined sculpture of the "artistic paleoart school" (to understand what it portrays dinosaurs as they fight each other or similar poses or with a set of feathers would envy to a parrot). Apart from this absurdity "of cataloging", no serious indication of the law been given, but only slogans poorly applied.
That there is antipathy towards this, for which I do not understand and I do not care why, I infer from the fact that by the some museum, in Commons there this photograph of a reconstruction of Dimetrodon [[:]] (indicated yesterday), but no request for cancellation has been made, unless to keep a photo, instead to waste time discussing, it is enougth to not indicates the location of the subject. Maybe?. --Bramfab (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Sorry, but you are wrong. There is good case law in the US that even taxidermy has a copyright, as of course, do sculptures of humans and animals, whether current or extinct. And, by the way, please see Commons:Deletion requests/. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ammonite_reconstruction.jpg&oldid=578132428"