Commons:Deletion requests/File:Honuswagnerstatue.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 3D artwork in US. Unless we know more about whether the statue was published with or without copyright notice, this could be a copyvio. FASTILY (TALK) 01:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I would very much like to see a ruling on photos such as this. At the very least, I have several photos of statues, including this one, which were zapped from wikipedia because they were not covered by "freedom of panorama", but which rumor has it might be acceptable at commons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, Commons:Freedom of panorama details the workings of the exemption on this project. Basically, if a copyrighted work in its country is permitted by its laws to have photographs of it being taken and published for any use without the author's permission, then it can be uploaded here; e.g. buildings in the US are okay, works of arts are not; buildings in the Japan visible from public areas are okay, works of arts are not; buildings and works of art (except 2D ones) are okay in the UK, etc. FoP is kind of moot here since the subject in question is in the public domain (see below). Jappalang (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- So if this process results in keep, I can upload my own photos of the statue without fear of it being zapped this time. Right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The items in question were File:Wagner statue 010521.JPG and File:Wagner statue 930606.JPG. I had uploaded them to wikipedia several years ago, then they supposedly got moved to commons, and then somewhere along the way, they got zapped. Do I need to re-upload them, or can they be un-deleted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Check out this diff from "commons delinker",[1] which specifically makes the claim, "Derivative work: no freedom of panorama in the United States." Perhaps you can see where my confusion arises. It's worth pointing out that I myself changed out the other picture[2] for one that another user had uploaded, as his pic was better quality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, I have no idea why they were deleted. You would have to ask Durin about that since he was the one who deleted them. From Peter's initial response below, it might easily be that someone thought the statue was a recent one based on the new stadium and hence automatically copyrighted (and FoP does not apply to works of art in the US). As found out, the truth is that the statue was created and erected in 1950s, and failed to comply with copyright requirements, so the subject is in the public domain. You can request for those photographs to be undeleted if the decision here is to keep (which seems likely unless someone finds a valid copyright notice on some part of the statue that is not noted by SIRIS). Jappalang (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm guessing someone made an assumption based on no evidence. I would have asked the editor, except he's been inactive for over 2 years. We'll see how things go here, and then I'll ask an admin if they can undelete those 2 files of mine. If not, I have them somewhere on my PC. Thanks for your help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, I have no idea why they were deleted. You would have to ask Durin about that since he was the one who deleted them. From Peter's initial response below, it might easily be that someone thought the statue was a recent one based on the new stadium and hence automatically copyrighted (and FoP does not apply to works of art in the US). As found out, the truth is that the statue was created and erected in 1950s, and failed to comply with copyright requirements, so the subject is in the public domain. You can request for those photographs to be undeleted if the decision here is to keep (which seems likely unless someone finds a valid copyright notice on some part of the statue that is not noted by SIRIS). Jappalang (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, Commons:Freedom of panorama details the workings of the exemption on this project. Basically, if a copyrighted work in its country is permitted by its laws to have photographs of it being taken and published for any use without the author's permission, then it can be uploaded here; e.g. buildings in the US are okay, works of arts are not; buildings in the Japan visible from public areas are okay, works of arts are not; buildings and works of art (except 2D ones) are okay in the UK, etc. FoP is kind of moot here since the subject in question is in the public domain (see below). Jappalang (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete- This looked recent because of the stadium, but it was moved;
Keep per Jappalang. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- This looked recent because of the stadium, but it was moved;
- Keep: This statue of Honus Wagner was first erected in 1954 in Forbes Field; it was then relocated to Three Rivers Stadium, then to its current place at PNC Park in 2001.(Italian Americans: Bridges to Italy, Bonds to America, p. 158) The statue was sculpted by Frank Vittor (1888–1968).(Italians of Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania, p. 53) Its entry on SIRIS notes that its inscription bears Vittor's signature, but nothing that would comply with copyright requirements for that time. As such, this statue (deemed to be published by pre-1978 laws) has fallen into the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's kind of an assumption by inference or by absence. Is that safe? Is that catalogue sufficiently large that it could be used as a reference on this or most any other photo of an artwork? I'm thinking that such a reference would be useful to pre-empt someone who might get delete-happy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- SIRIS? It is sort of reliable, as Carl Lindberg explains at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright notice on sculptures. Note that per Commons:Project scope/Evidence, the onus is on the uploader to show why the uploaded image is totally "free" when significant doubt is raised. If one is uploading images of possibly copyrighted subjects, it would help to state why pictures are still considered "free" (FoP or de minimis) or to clarify the copyright status of the subjects so as to avoid such issues. Jappalang (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Uploaders should at least give some details about the artwork, like who the sculptor was and when it was made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- It would have been nice to know about this stuff a few years ago. I had never heard of "freedom of panorama". I just figured that if it was publicly visible, it was fair game. And I'm still not convinced that this particular statue is necessarily exempt from the restriction. Just because that website doesn't explicitly say anything about copyright doesn't prove anything. This stuff drives contributors crazy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- If the reliability of SIRIS in this case is doubtful, one can pop down to PNC Park and take a look. If there is a copyright notice on the statue (on it, its original pedestal, or original inscription), take a picture and upload it as evidence. Jappalang (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- That would be a bit of a drive. Do statues typically have (c) notices on them? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Some of them do; it need not be (c), a "Copyright" or "copr" (as long as it is clear the word means copyright) as explained by Lindberg would also suffice. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Does it matter what year? For example, the 1996 statue to Olympic athletes in Atlanta is supposedly copyrighted. But does it still need a copyright notice on it? Or is anything produced after 1978 just "assumed" to be copyrighted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- According to Lindberg in that thread, no for the year ("note that the year could be omitted on sculptures"); Honus Wagner's statue just needs a copyright notice attributed to Frank Vittor.
As for other statues, for those erected after 1977 (if I remember correctly), the definition of publication has changed for them to the distribution of copies; as such, post-1977 statues are considered to be unpublished material (not requiring copyright notices for copyright) unless the sculptor offered to make copies for sale (in which case, notices would only be required for those erected between 1977 and 2002). Note that any item created/published after 2002 is automatically copyrighted on a post mortem auctoris (pma) basis. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- According to Lindberg in that thread, no for the year ("note that the year could be omitted on sculptures"); Honus Wagner's statue just needs a copyright notice attributed to Frank Vittor.
- Does it matter what year? For example, the 1996 statue to Olympic athletes in Atlanta is supposedly copyrighted. But does it still need a copyright notice on it? Or is anything produced after 1978 just "assumed" to be copyrighted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Some of them do; it need not be (c), a "Copyright" or "copr" (as long as it is clear the word means copyright) as explained by Lindberg would also suffice. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- That would be a bit of a drive. Do statues typically have (c) notices on them? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- If the reliability of SIRIS in this case is doubtful, one can pop down to PNC Park and take a look. If there is a copyright notice on the statue (on it, its original pedestal, or original inscription), take a picture and upload it as evidence. Jappalang (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- It would have been nice to know about this stuff a few years ago. I had never heard of "freedom of panorama". I just figured that if it was publicly visible, it was fair game. And I'm still not convinced that this particular statue is necessarily exempt from the restriction. Just because that website doesn't explicitly say anything about copyright doesn't prove anything. This stuff drives contributors crazy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Uploaders should at least give some details about the artwork, like who the sculptor was and when it was made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- SIRIS? It is sort of reliable, as Carl Lindberg explains at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright notice on sculptures. Note that per Commons:Project scope/Evidence, the onus is on the uploader to show why the uploaded image is totally "free" when significant doubt is raised. If one is uploading images of possibly copyrighted subjects, it would help to state why pictures are still considered "free" (FoP or de minimis) or to clarify the copyright status of the subjects so as to avoid such issues. Jappalang (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's kind of an assumption by inference or by absence. Is that safe? Is that catalogue sufficiently large that it could be used as a reference on this or most any other photo of an artwork? I'm thinking that such a reference would be useful to pre-empt someone who might get delete-happy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- comment migrate to english wikipedia with "non free 3D" tag Slowking4 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: You have all missed an important point. The copyright on a 1954 work had to be renewed around 1982. The renewal database for dates 1978+ is on line at http://www.copyright.gov/records/ and is definitive. There are no entries for Frank Vittor. Therefore this sculpture, and any other work of his done after 1950, is PD.
I have undeleted the other two images.
I find this a very usable summary of the US law: File:PD-US_table.svg.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
