Commons:Deletion requests/File:JOSEP MARIA SUBIRACHS, ESCULPTOR (14953130084).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Spain. The sculptor, Josep Maria Subirachs, died in 2014. Therefore his works will be under copyright until 2084 and these images cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from his heir. See OTRS for the procedure that the heir must follow. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. It make no sense your porpouse. This is a image of the sculptor not from his masterpieces. Additionaly, Subirachs sculptures are wherever in Catalonia, specially in Sagrada Familia temple with milions of free images generated each month. Is obvious the sculptor never disagree with the difussion of his pieces in public spaces. In this image the sculptor is working in the workshop of the temple and, before to be freed for commons by his author, was published without no opposition from the sculptor, when still was alive. --amador (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An image of the sculptor himself would be good, but this image shows at least two of his works very prominently and therefore infringes on his copyright. We are prohibited from considering "was published without opposition from the sculptor" unless he gave a free license, in writing, see COM:PRP #3. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is his workshop in Sagrada Família, therefore it is supposed he is working on works to be exhibited there under FoP. From the drawing in the backgound I imagine they are works for the Passion Facade and indeed the face in relief is currently in this facade. --V.Riullop (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In order for FOP to apply, the work must be out of doors on a public street at the time the image was taken. The fact that a work may or may not be covered by FOP in the future cannot be applied here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking advantage of CC-BY-SA-2.0 given by photographer, I've cropped the picture to avoid a "full view" of pieces. It's now enough for you ?.--amador (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Article 40bis further states the above law "may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer."
So We have a partial reproduction of an Sculpture that, even despite it was in a close place at the moment of taking the photo, its located permanently in a public place, and the fact of being a partial caption makes no prejudice to the author. So, We must  Keep.--Coentor (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The crop is good, thank you Amador. If everyone agrees, I will delete the previous version and close this as kept. I do not accept Coentor's argument that the fact that work may now be located outside makes if covered by FOP. First, that's not the way the law is meant to be read -- the whole point of the law is to allow photographs of outdoor scenes and second, we do not know beyond a significant doubt that all of the works in the image are now covered by FOP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version is ok, it fits the purpouse the file is currently used. --V.Riullop (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Removed the first version of the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]