Commons:Deletion requests/File:GuernicaGernikara.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.
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.
Derivative work of a replica of Picasso's Guernica, which is under copyright. Not a free image. Powers (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Permitted and free under Freedom_of_panorama#Spain--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that only apply if this was the original Guernica on display? A photograph of a copyright violation is still a copyright violation. Powers (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- yes, you are correct i thought it was the original.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect this is OK. I strongly doubt that a replica that has now been on a wall in a public place in Gernika for decades was done without sorting out rights. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- But it's an appeal to have the painting displayed in Gernika; it seems unlikely that the rightsholders would agree to support such an appeal that they don't intend to cooperate with. =) Powers (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The rightsholders are probably the Picasso heirs. I don't know if they have an opinion on the location of the painting, especially if they had it in 1997. The painting spent decades abroad and Picasso's will was to have it at Prado. en:Guernica (painting) does not mention the heirs in the discussions about the definitive placement. So the heirs could be very well have authorized the tiles, especially if they were not told about the slogan. --Error (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, it's possible, but we don't have evidence either way. Powers (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The rightsholders are probably the Picasso heirs. I don't know if they have an opinion on the location of the painting, especially if they had it in 1997. The painting spent decades abroad and Picasso's will was to have it at Prado. en:Guernica (painting) does not mention the heirs in the discussions about the definitive placement. So the heirs could be very well have authorized the tiles, especially if they were not told about the slogan. --Error (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- But it's an appeal to have the painting displayed in Gernika; it seems unlikely that the rightsholders would agree to support such an appeal that they don't intend to cooperate with. =) Powers (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Gerinika-Lumo City Council web site has a brief blurb about this ceramic mural. It says: "This mural was commissioned by the City Hall of Gernika from the firms Cerámicas Queralt in Berga, Barcelona, Barcelona and Gernika being twin cities. It is a reproduction in the tradicional style, faithfully representing the composition that pablo Picasso created...". So this ceramic mural is definitely intended to be a derivative work of Picasso's Guernica (not that was in much doubt), but if it is a copyright violation due to lack of license, it is a pretty high profile one given that this is not the work of an anonymous artist making a social statement, but instead a work officially commissioned by Gernika's city government. —RP88 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect this is OK. I strongly doubt that a replica that has now been on a wall in a public place in Gernika for decades was done without sorting out rights. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- yes, you are correct i thought it was the original.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that only apply if this was the original Guernica on display? A photograph of a copyright violation is still a copyright violation. Powers (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep per RP88. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- RP88 didn't say anything about keeping. Powers (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also think it's under freedom of panorama. --Error (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not at issue here. The problem is not that the photo is derivative of the displayed mural; it's that the mural is derivative of Guernica. And Guernica is not on public outdoor display and is thus not subject to Freedom of Panorama exceptions. Powers (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept per RP88: This is not a graffiti or private mural but a replica commissioned by the city of Guernica in 1997. I think that it is safe to assume here that this replica is no copyright violation, i.e. this was done with authorization by the heirs of Pablo Picasso. Given this, {{FoP-Spain}} applies. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe the reason given for keeping this by the closing administrator was flawed. We cannot simply assume that the city had permission to violate copyright, nor that that permission extends to us, without some sort of evidence of that. Its mere existence is not evidence of permission. Powers (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We don't have a reason to belive otherwise, either. We can proove that we took the image under FOP, so if anybody complains about this usage, he has to complain about the mural and it's not us to be blamed for that.
- However, creating a mural from a painting could be considered a non-comercial use only (since nobody pays for seeing it), such that this basically circumvents the law in any case. To be considered in general: If I owned a painting of picasso (not the copyrights, the real painting), I could simply place it outside my house at the wall, take a picture and declare it FOP. I don't think there's an article that prevents this "abuse". --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Spanish FoP requires permanence. So your hypothetical painting should be on the wall always. Then it would be under FOP. For example, there are Dalí and Miró works on the streets of Madrid. They are (happily) under FoP. --Error (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I refer to this discussion. Powers failed to substantiate where we should have significant doubts per COM:PRP in this case. Do you know of any case where a Spanish city council commissioned a copyright violation? And, if this would be the case, why didn't the copyright holders object? This replica was erected in 1997. They would have had plenty of time by now. In addition, I want to point out that the permission given to the city does not need to extend directly to us. This is covered by {{FoP-Spain}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's out there for Spanish FOP, and I think we've got to presume legally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I think it's a little abusive to reopen a DR you started a month later when you got no support on the first DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't. I disagreed with the closure, asked AFBorchert to reverse. COM:DR#Appeal clearly says "If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion)." I asked on Commons talk:Deletion requests for alternatives but received no reply, so I went ahead and followed the instructions. Powers (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- But more to the point -- how can we presume legality here? I honestly don't understand why, on a project that normally takes copyright so seriously, we're aiding and abetting what looks to be a clear copyright violation of one of the most important artworks of the 20th century. Powers (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's basically simple: Because we don't need to assume that the mural was errected illegally. AGF is also valid for people or rights outside wikipedia. Unless something is obviously and visibly illegal, nobody has to assume bad faith on others rights. Or do you generally assume that any new car you buy at your local dealer is stolen? No, you assume everything is in order with it unless you have evidence for the contrary. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that the people who erected this copy were acting in good faith. But that doesn't mean they actually were in the clear in a strict copyright sense. It just doesn't seem at all likely to me that the copyright owners of the original painting would agree to such a public display in a country with freedom of panorama like Spain; if they're going to do that, why not just donate the original to the public domain and be done with it? I worry that this image is being used to circumvent the copyright on the original painting. Doesn't the precautionary principle suggest that we should err on the side of caution here? Powers (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- We aren't using to circumvent the copyright on the original painting; en.WP displays the original painting, and everywhere we're using this picture, which is hardly a good copy of the original, we could legally display the original under fair use. (That's not an argument about fair use, but anything we're circumventing is our own rules, not copyright.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no doubt that the people who erected this copy were acting in good faith. But that doesn't mean they actually were in the clear in a strict copyright sense. It just doesn't seem at all likely to me that the copyright owners of the original painting would agree to such a public display in a country with freedom of panorama like Spain; if they're going to do that, why not just donate the original to the public domain and be done with it? I worry that this image is being used to circumvent the copyright on the original painting. Doesn't the precautionary principle suggest that we should err on the side of caution here? Powers (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- We're not aiding and abetting anything. This is apparently entirely legal under Spanish copyright law, if the template is correct: "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." It says nothing about legal works. Furthermore, Commons always takes reasonable presumptions about taking people's word that it's their picture unless there's evidence otherwise. I think assuming a city would not build a permanent mural without the right to display such falls under such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's basically simple: Because we don't need to assume that the mural was errected illegally. AGF is also valid for people or rights outside wikipedia. Unless something is obviously and visibly illegal, nobody has to assume bad faith on others rights. Or do you generally assume that any new car you buy at your local dealer is stolen? No, you assume everything is in order with it unless you have evidence for the contrary. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I think it's a little abusive to reopen a DR you started a month later when you got no support on the first DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
