Commons:Deletion requests/File:Keith Haring homage on Houston Street 3.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.
Since this mural is post -1989, this image definitely infringes on the mural artist's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- The mural artist may not have a copyright, since the underlying artwork appears not to be by Haring, but a "homage" to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I did a little more research. The caption on this image at WP:EN reads:
- "A recreation of Haring's famous mural, originally painted in 1982, on the corner of Houston Street and the Bowery in New York City. The homage to the artist was painted at the same location and was exhibited for a year between 2008 and 2009."
- If that is correct, and it is an exact copy, then the 1982 rules apply -- the work must have notice or be registered within five years. Keith Haring has 156 works registered at the USCO -- the search there does not have images and we don't know the title of this work, but it seems reasonable to assume that the 1982 work was registered and therefore has a copyright. Therefore the work shown here is a derivative work of a copyrighted work. This image therefore infringes both copyrights.
- If the 2008 mural is not an exact copy of the 1982 work -- but a "homage", as described, then it has a new copyright and it does not matter whether the 1982 work was registered.
- In either case we would need the permission of the artist who did the 2008 work. In the first case, we would also need permission from Haring's estate. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I did a little more research. The caption on this image at WP:EN reads:
- This is a photograph of a street scene in which the copyrighted work is included, so I would keep. If it was just a replication of the mural I would agree with deletion. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please. That argument would allow us to keep any outdoor mural as they are all "scenes" of one sort or another. Our clear policy, however, is that murals must be treated like any other painting. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are enough elements in the photo that are not the mural that I doubt there is a copyright issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted element is not de minimis. – Adrignola talk 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
