Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juarez and 11 men.jpg
I have selected one of a large set of uploads by this editor for an experienced copyright expert to assess. If it is deleted as a copyright violation (It is a picture of a copyright work) then the other similar uploads should also be deleted, and I ask that this be put in hand. Obviously the uploader should make use of COM:OTRS to regularise permissions, which will prevent deletion
I chose not to flag every single file in this deletion nomination in case I am not correct Timtrent (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to do. I am the author who placed the pictures I took in Wiki Commons. It is my understanding that public art can be photographed and used. My entire page is based on a public mural created 25 years ago. I took several pictures of the mural and I'm writing a Wikipedia page about them. Others have taken pictures of the same mural and are selling them on the Internet. Others have taken pictures of the same mural and published in a recent book about the mural.
|
"Derivative works Shortcut WP:DERIVATIVE A derivative work is something that is "based on or derived from" another work. For example, the first Star Wars novelization is a derivative work of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Therefore, Del Rey Books required Lucasfilm's permission to publish and distribute the book. The French translation of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a derivative of the English novel. Translator Jean-François Ménard required the permission of J. K. Rowling's agent, Christopher Little Literary Agency, to prepare, publish and distribute it. You may not distribute a derivative work of a work under copyright without the original author's permission unless your use of their content meets fair use or fair dealing. (Generally, a summary (or analysis) of something is not a derivative work, unless it reproduces the original in great detail, at which point it becomes an abridgment and not a summary.) Taking a work in the public domain and modifying it in a significant way creates a new copyright on the resulting work. For instance, the Homecoming Saga by Orson Scott Card is a re-telling of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the books in the Homecoming series can be copyrighted. No Fear Shakespeare is a series adapting the works of Shakespeare into modern language. Even though Shakespeare's works are public domain, the No Fear Shakespeare series is protected by copyright. This is true as well of the translations in the Penguin Classics series. Although faithful translations of public domain works, they each are protected by copyright. However, the new work must be different from the original in order for a new copyright to apply, as the US Supreme Court ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation. The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement. The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in originality. In their opinion, the Court noted: "There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But 'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify." [7] This ruling only applies to two-dimensional works. For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken. Therefore, pictures of public domain 3D works are not free unless it was created by the uploader. In addition, in some countries such as the United Kingdom, simple diligence is enough for a work to be copyrightable (including reproductions of public domain works). The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on this, however, is that any reproduction of a two-dimensional work in the public domain is not copyrightable, for otherwise the very purpose of the public domain would be defeated as to such works.[8] Pictures of copyrighted buildings are not considered derivative works, unless the country it is photographed in does not have freedom of panorama provisions (such as France or Italy). In United States copyright law though, "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work – but only if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."[9] As such, freely-licensed photos of copyrighted buildings (but not photos of copyrighted artwork attached to buildings) generally can be hosted on the US-based English Wikipedia regardless of where the photo was taken.[10] |
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArbyBB (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- The draft in question is Wikipedia en:Draft:Oaxaca en la historia y en el mito. It contains 13 photos of the mural which appear to have been taken by the creating editor, User:ArbyBB. The dates shown as when the photos were taken (Nov 7-15) match when ArbyBB added those figures to the draft. The mural is in a building in Oaxaca, Mexico, so I think that Mexico law on freedom of panorama applies. As a separate issue, there are two other images in the draft. The first, of the artist painting the mural, may have a copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @David notMD Looking at File:Arturo Garcia Bustos painting the mural Oaxaca in myth and history.jpg, this is a simple COM:OTRS matter, which @ArbyBB should resolve simply and straight away. The proof of the permission needs to be lodged correctly with Commons. I suggest that the source be corrected to the actual source by the uploader. It is most assuredly separate from the pictures of the mural. I had set that aside, considering the issues raised by the mural to be the more pressing for expert determination. Timtrent (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi ArbyBB. Please take a look a Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Murals, Commons:Derivative works, Commons:Own work and Commons:Licensing for more detailed information, but it looks like that there are two copyright matters which need to be resolved here: the copyright of the photos and the copyright of the mural that is shown in the photos. The first one is fairly easily to resolve if all of the photos you uploaded are photos you personally took because the copyright holder of a photo is (except in some specific situations) almost always going to be the photographer who takes the photo. So, if you want to upload your photos to Commons, then great. If you didn't take any of the photos yourself, then you can't claim them as your "own work" and you can't upload them to Commons without the consent of the person who actually took the photos. The same rationale applies to the mural shown in the photos. If you're the artist who painted it, you own the copyright on it and can choose to upload your own photos of it to Commons. If, however, someone else painted the mural, you're going to need that person's consent to upload even your own photos of it to Commons. This is a very general assessment of the situation and things might depend upon the copyright laws of the en:country of origin and the concept of Commons:Freedom of panorama. Some countries (e.g. the Unites States) follow a fairly restrictive approach when it comes to publically displayed works of art like statues, paintings, murals, etc., whereas others (e.g. the UK) are a bit more relaxed. Since it appears from en:Draft:Oaxaca en la historia y en el mito the mural is located in Mexico, Mexican copyright law is going to largely determine whether this mural is protected by copyright. Try and understand that uploading anything to Commons is basically giving permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use); so, Commons needs to be as sure as it possibly can be that none of the content it's hosting is infringing upon the rights or any copyright holder, and questionable content is going to be deleted as a precaution if it cannot be verified to be OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- ArbyBB As a simple solution to the first part, I recommend removing the image of Garcia Bustos painting the mural from the draft. Given that Garcia Bustos is dead, you cannot get his permission to use your photographs of his mural, so whether your photographs remain will rest on Mexican copyright law. The fact that photos of the mural have been published in other media matters not. However, according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico, "Freedom of Panorama" may allow your use of your photographs of art displayed in a government building. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @David notMD, @Marchjuly please note the full set has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Murals by Arturo García Bustos Timtrent (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- ArbyBB As a simple solution to the first part, I recommend removing the image of Garcia Bustos painting the mural from the draft. Given that Garcia Bustos is dead, you cannot get his permission to use your photographs of his mural, so whether your photographs remain will rest on Mexican copyright law. The fact that photos of the mural have been published in other media matters not. However, according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico, "Freedom of Panorama" may allow your use of your photographs of art displayed in a government building. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
