Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ca 1920 Joseph Henry Sharp.jpg
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.
1920 US painting. No evidence is provided that it was published before 1923. All we know is that it came to the museum in 1985. --Teofilo (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I consulted with Mike Godwin (WMF general council) regarding these images. He agreed that publicly exhibiting a painting could be sufficient to constitute "publication" for the purposes of copyright. He also said that the images from Wikipedia Loves Art are particularly unproblematic because they originated through collaboration with the museums. In other words, since the museums are the most likely to complain to the WMF, but they gave us explicit permission to host the paintings, there is no reason for us to be worried about them. I do think for this painting in particular, the frame needs to be cropped off though. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you trying to seek the WMF's interest or are you trying to provide free files for everybody to enjoy ? Are you a little soldier of a WMF empire or a citizen trying to be helpful helping other citizens find free files ? Teofilo (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I was one of the organizers of Wikipedia Loves Art. I drove hundreds of miles to museums (on my own dime) to arrange the event with museum staff, and spent dozens of hours helping museum staff sort through the resulting photos and get them transferred from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons (nearly 4,000 photos total). I don't see how my employment at the Wikimedia Foundation has anything to do with this, and I am rather insulted by your comment about being "a little soldier of a WMF empire". I volunteered my time with Wikipedia Loves Art because I wanted to provide free access to art that was otherwise inaccessible to most people, not because of some mandate by the Foundation. Kaldari (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you trying to seek the WMF's interest or are you trying to provide free files for everybody to enjoy ? Are you a little soldier of a WMF empire or a citizen trying to be helpful helping other citizens find free files ? Teofilo (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand the statement "the museums are the most likely to complain to the WMF". I think the copyright holder should be the painter's estate ( the painter's heirs) NOT the museum, who merely owns the material painting, not the intellectual property rights attached to it. Teofilo (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of the Smithsonian (and other prestigious museums), they frequently own the rights to the paintings in their holdings, not the painter's heirs, as this is frequently a part of the bequeathment (and occasionally a condition of accepting the holding). In this specific case, however, I have no idea who would own the rights if they do in fact exist. Kaldari (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand the statement "the museums are the most likely to complain to the WMF". I think the copyright holder should be the painter's estate ( the painter's heirs) NOT the museum, who merely owns the material painting, not the intellectual property rights attached to it. Teofilo (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep If this would be regarded as "unpublished" until 1985, I do not believe that the painter's estate has any rights; such rights would more likely belong to the museum, which gave permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuipers reasoning. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
