Commons:Deletion requests/File:Domain mall Level 4 Garden Artwork - 1 201704.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.
No FoP for "graphic works" in Hong Kong A1Cafel (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep This is 3D artistic work as being works of artistic craftsmanship--Wpcpey (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete: this is not a work of artistic craftsmanship. See these two discussions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Q150 surveying memorial, Calliope River Historical Village, 2014 01.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sai Ying Pun Station artworks and find more clarifications on what counts as "work of artistic craftsmanship" towards the end of the discussions. In my opinion, a work of artistic craftsmanship must be otherwise "useful" in addition to being artistic, thus this photo in question does not depict a work of artistic craftsmanship. --Wcam (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment You should probably ask User:Rodhullandemu, because he decided these photos were OK on Commons under British common law. Your subject is similar both in style (relief) and in material (ceramics).--Roy17 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I take it as read that this work is in a public place rather than just being visible from one. It looks to me like a relief, which means it has depth and is therefore a 3D work. The depth is part of the creative process and IMO is intended to give a more realistic impression. Hong Kong law is based on English law which allows FOP for both 3D works and 2D works of artistic craftsmanship. There is very little guidance from UK the courts as to what constitutes a "work of artistic craftsmanship". From COM:FOP UK, "In Hensher -v- Restawile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles...". This image looks like a hand-painted tile, albeit on a large scale, so IMO qualifies for FOP as both a 3D work AND as a work of artistic craftsmanship. The Hong Kong courts may diverge from UK law at some point, but until they do, I imagine they'd be guided by UK precedents. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @AndyHung1979 and Wpcpey: --Roy17 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging @Clindberg for opinion. --Wcam (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Works of artistic craftsmanship do seem to need at least some sort of utilitarian aspect to them, i.e. there was at least some restriction imposed on the artist in service to the utilitarian needs. The hand painted tiles have been mentioned as qualifying, and are probably at the edge -- but those are at least sold as a product, and the painted tiles do need to work together when installed as a wall alongside other tiles. Stained glass windows are another one mentioned -- those do still need to function to let light through, and stand up to weather. I don't really see how this work qualifies in that respect -- seems completely artistic. However, if there is a 3-D aspect, which at first glance there seems to be... could argue that it qualifies as sculpture. Probably lean keep on that aspect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per general consensus above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
