Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grave of Wild Bill Hickok.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 licensing information on depicted 3D artwork. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Kelly (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep- According to this article, the currently statue was erected in 2002, though it was inspired by an earlier 1891 sculpture. Kelly (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- According to the article, the bronze statue is not "inspired" by the previous stone one, but it's a replica - for example, even a misspelling has been copied, and a toothbrush has been used to give the bronze the same texture of the previous stone piece. Therefore, I doubt if there is anything copyrightable in this copy of a public domain piece. It's not very different from a restoration of a public domain building.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't run into this particular copyright situation before, so I asked at COM:VPC here. Regardless, the image desciption page needs some kind of license for the depicted 3D artwork. Kelly (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- According to the article, the bronze statue is not "inspired" by the previous stone one, but it's a replica - for example, even a misspelling has been copied, and a toothbrush has been used to give the bronze the same texture of the previous stone piece. Therefore, I doubt if there is anything copyrightable in this copy of a public domain piece. It's not very different from a restoration of a public domain building.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- According to this article, the currently statue was erected in 2002, though it was inspired by an earlier 1891 sculpture. Kelly (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep From the timeline of the cemetery, the bust was sculpted in 1891 by J.H. Riordan. In 1946 it was heavily damaged by people chipping off bits to take home. A photograph of this original sculpture shows in a photo at this location. You may have to scroll to the end of the photo section to see it, just before the start of the next chapter. The pages are not paginated with numbers. Additionally, the Rapid City article states: "Deadwood historic preservation officials hailed a bronze replica Friday of the original stone "Wild Bill" Hickok grave marker at Mount Moriah Cemetery in Deadwood." Further confirmation of the intent to replicate the 1891 piece from the cemetery magazine: "Created by local artist David Young, a bronze replica of an original 1891 J.H. Riordan statue was installed on Wild Bill’s grave two years ago." I agree that all of this should be added to the description and an effort made to find the dates of J.H. Riordan whom some writers refer to as "from New York" and others suggest he may have sculpted part of Calamity Jane's monument and a statue of A.F. McDonald at Wind Cave. Other than that, I found nothing about him but references to the Mount Moriah grave sculptures. If the closing admin doesn't wish to take the time to provide the summary if keeping the image, please ping me and I'll do it. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be really careful about this. If it's an *exact* replica, then no, there would be no copyright. However, even if just a close re-creation, the person making the new sculpture may have made changes or had to guess at what the previous one looked like (maybe even just from the back) and therefore added their own creativity. There is a Statue of Liberty replica in Las Vegas which I believe has its own copyright registration (so the US Copyright Office agreed; there are noticeable differences) and another somewhere in New York, the latter of which became part of a copyright lawsuit when the US Postal Service accidentally used a photo of it instead of the real one. This one sounds like a situation where it's likely the new sculptor added additional expression. If it is a "slavish reproduction" where they tried to replicate every little detail, then it could be different I guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You think? Is that artistic enough? Otherwise we will run into this question with every restauration of an old building, sculpture or painting. You could argue with restaurations some artistic choices are made. Probably we should value the intention of the artist, if his/her intention was to make a replica as the former creator meant it, or was asked to create a work inspired by --Hannolans (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that restoration of a building would fall under it (a completely re-built building based on old photos might be different). But this is a fresh sculpture. I'm just saying that some of these replicas do get copyright protection, like it or not -- it does not take much to add one's own creative work to it, really. It doesn't even have to be the main feature. There have been some rulings on "slavish copies" where the attempt was to replicate every little detail -- those did not get protection. There are a number of details slavishly copied here, but... if the only old photos were from the front, he had to invent the back completely, that sort of thing. In most cases the sculptor wouldn't be very litigious, but if they are and it was used in a way which was not fair use (probably just commercial uses) -- there may not be much defense. As mentioned the Postal Service used a photo of a replica Statue of Liberty accidentally -- it was close enough to not be noticed initially, but it was enough to end up in court (though I don't see how that turned out -- just the initial filing, and can't find further info -- maybe settled). For comparison, File:Grabill - Wild Bills Monument.jpg is a photo of the original; another is here (with the sculptor standing next to it), and another here (along with another statue done by Riordan, of en:Henry Weston Smith). Another photo of the new monument here. It is very close, but... there do seem to be some different details. I do not see a registration for the statue though. Clearly a lot of the expression is copied, and maybe the differences are de minimis in a photograph. It could be OK though as quite often there is a lot of gray area. I'm not going to vote for delete, but it's probably not a "copyright does not exist in a slavish copy" situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comparing the photos of the two sculptures, there are definitely differences. One that jumps out is the moustache, which is much bushier in the 1891 original. Just a guess on my part, but I would speculate the 2002 sculpture incorporated elements of both the 1891 sculpture and of contemporary photos of Hickok, such as File:Wild Bill Hickok sepia.png. Kelly (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that restoration of a building would fall under it (a completely re-built building based on old photos might be different). But this is a fresh sculpture. I'm just saying that some of these replicas do get copyright protection, like it or not -- it does not take much to add one's own creative work to it, really. It doesn't even have to be the main feature. There have been some rulings on "slavish copies" where the attempt was to replicate every little detail -- those did not get protection. There are a number of details slavishly copied here, but... if the only old photos were from the front, he had to invent the back completely, that sort of thing. In most cases the sculptor wouldn't be very litigious, but if they are and it was used in a way which was not fair use (probably just commercial uses) -- there may not be much defense. As mentioned the Postal Service used a photo of a replica Statue of Liberty accidentally -- it was close enough to not be noticed initially, but it was enough to end up in court (though I don't see how that turned out -- just the initial filing, and can't find further info -- maybe settled). For comparison, File:Grabill - Wild Bills Monument.jpg is a photo of the original; another is here (with the sculptor standing next to it), and another here (along with another statue done by Riordan, of en:Henry Weston Smith). Another photo of the new monument here. It is very close, but... there do seem to be some different details. I do not see a registration for the statue though. Clearly a lot of the expression is copied, and maybe the differences are de minimis in a photograph. It could be OK though as quite often there is a lot of gray area. I'm not going to vote for delete, but it's probably not a "copyright does not exist in a slavish copy" situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You think? Is that artistic enough? Otherwise we will run into this question with every restauration of an old building, sculpture or painting. You could argue with restaurations some artistic choices are made. Probably we should value the intention of the artist, if his/her intention was to make a replica as the former creator meant it, or was asked to create a work inspired by --Hannolans (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I did find info on Riordan -- found this snippet from the September 14, 1901 Lead Daily Call newspaper from Lead, South Dakota[1]: James Henry Riordan, the young man who without a day's study made from a block of stone the statue of Wild Bill, also one of the ministers who was murdered by the Indians [Henry Weston Smith], died at Hot Springs a few days ago at the age of 38 years. His natural talent amounted to genius which would with study and opportunity have placed his name high up in the temple of fame. Speaking of his death the Hot Springs Times-Herald said: "The deceased was a resident of Buffalo Gap a number of years ago, leaving there for the northwest. He returned to the Hills and located in our city this spring much in hopes that health might again be his, but too late. He was a sculptor of much ability and his work was universally admired. As a designer he had no equal in the west and a group that he had on exhibition at the Columbian exposition gained for him an interstate reputation. He was a good citizen, a loving husband and father and in his personal attachments be was faithful and beloved. He leaves a young wife and one child to whom we extend our deepest sympathy." So, it looks like he was born in 1863 or 1864, and died in September 1901 at age 38. The statue says he was working in New York at the time, though obviously travelled out there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like he also may have done a bust of Hamilton which was on the monument in Weehawken, but it was vandalized (thrown over the cliff and head never recovered) in 1934, and the current replacement was installed in 1935. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Good work, but I think this one is a different statue. According to en:Wild_Bill_Hickok#Burial, Riordan's statue has been replaced several times, and the replicated statue seems to be newer than that in the photographs found. Anyway, now I'm not sure about when the copyrightable changes - the reduction of the moustache - were made and if they are already on the public domain.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Even if you are correct (I honestly don't know), we would need license information for the theoretical intermediate sculpture. Kelly (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. We need to know if those small moustaches are PD, unless it were De Minimins.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- It was replaced once, with a full statue (not a bust) by Alvin Smith. What is left of it is pictured on this page. That is not the same statue. The current one was following the Riordan statue explicitly (it even replicated the sculptor credit). As for the small mustache, who knows. Apparently the bushy ends were some of the first bits chipped off the original, so maybe Young was following a later picture, or maybe more based on the photographs as suggested. Those are some of the small details which tend to get changed when something is re-sculpted. The texture of the base is different too, though if those are natural rough contours by chipping away, those may not be as copyrightable. The question of if a photo is derivative is also interesting; it would have to show that the photo made more than de minimis use of the new additions. It is a tough question. You could even have situations where some are OK and some are not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- About 1,000 years ago, someone erected a runestone in the city of Norrtälje. In the 17th century, someone made a drawing of the runestone and published this drawing in a book, and at some later point, the stone was lost. In the 21st century, someone created a replica of the stone (File:Norrtälje Brodds sten.JPG) based on the 17th century drawing. There are virtually no noticeable differences, so the replica probably only depends on the copyright status of the original stone and possibly on the 17th century drawing in the event that there are errors in that drawing, but probably doesn't attract any new copyright. On the other hand, this page mentions an interesting case in the United States. Someone created pictures of various paintings, but there are minor differences between these pictures and the original paintings, and a court decided that the differences were sufficient for attracting copyright protection. The question is therefore how big the changes are and whether the differences are included on this photograph. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it might be that a photograph of the base and inscription (that even mimics misspellings of the original work) was OK while a photograph including the moustache was not OK.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Differences in the details of the sculpture (e.g moustache) create a new artwork, inspired (only) by the old one. Therefore we can't host photos of this sculpture. If you disagree, please take this case to Com:VPCOPY. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
