Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong portrait.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.

File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

[edit]

Portrait of Mao Zedong at Tiananmen Gate, is copyrighted, author living, See [1] --shizhao (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment But there is a FOP in China, and if the painting (it is not a foto but a painting) is displayed in public places in China, than this FOP will apply. Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Yes,it is a FOP in China,the paiting is permanently displayed on Tiananmen square. --NewSpeaks (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - no reason for deletion Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Regarding US law: This is not a panorama, this is a 2D-portrait - with above reasoning every publicly displayed painting would be PD. Since Zhang Zhenshi died only 1992 the image is not free. An image must be free in both source country and the US to be hosted on Commons. Hekerui (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not apply the American FoP rules to photos that were made in other countries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment like P. Kuiper, the argumentation of user:Herkerui is errouneous (sorry, spelling?) Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all revisions that are of the portrait alone, and  Keep versions which are photos of the portrait in Tiananmen Square.

Freedom of panorama is not a "freedom to violate the copyrights of an artist"; rather it simply allows one to take a photo of his or her work in its public environment and publish it (the photo of the subject and its surroundings) without infringing the artist's copyright.
Modifying the photo to make it solely a representation of the copyrighted item is a copyviolation (similar in principle to de minimis). Please read Commons:Freedom of panorama#Nuances in the panorama freedom, particularly "The right to modify" and "Further derivative works". Thus, cropping out the environment to obtain a nice picture of a copyrighted subject (remember, FoP does not invalidate copyrights) still violates the copyright of the artist; publishing a photo of the artwork in its installed environment is allowed under the law where FoP applies. As such, the versions uploaded on 07:46, 21 August 2009 and 15:11, 28 March 2010 are copyviolations and should be deleted. Jappalang (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, Chinese FOP seems far broader than European FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.


File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

[edit]

Article 22 of China's Copyright Law has an important condition that "the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon", which was overlooked by Kameraad Pjotr who closed the previous DR. Also Jappalang's argument above is a strong one that we should not keep this image here on Commons. Wcam (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question of what "other rights" is intended to cover is interesting, but it seems more like a criticism of {{FoP-China}} than of its applicability to this particular image. That said, I chose to look into it.
The rights enjoyed by copyright holders are listed in section 1, Article 10. Notably, this includes the rights of (5) reproduction, (6) distribution and (14) adaptation. It's not clear from the law itself which rights of Article 1 are trumped by the right to exploitation in Article 22 and which "other rights" remain – the articles are at odds with one another. Looking only at the statute, I would assume that the premise of {{FoP-China}} is invalid based on the concern that you raise.
As a result, one would assume that commercial use of depictions of public sculptures would infringe on the sculptor's copyright. However, as noted in Commons:Freedom of panorama#China, People's Republic of, case law shows that the courts apparently do not consider such use to be infringing. It would seem that they take a broad view of what is covered by "exploitation" – more so than I would personally have expected. As Article 22 (7) does not distinguish between two-dimensional and three-dimensional works, those case law precedents should be applicable here.
Respectfully, I do not agree that Jappalang's argument is strong. There does not seem to be any basis in Chinese statute or case law for the notion that the right to exploit publicly displayed works under Article 22 (7) is contingent on the inclusion of any surroundings. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although Article 22 (7) does not distinguish between two-dimensional and three-dimensional works, it is obvious that a three-dimensional work and a photo of a three-dimensional work are very different in nature. It follows that commercial reuse of such photo is unlikely to infringe "the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner" of the 3-d work. However, the image in question is essentially a faithful 2-d reproduction of a 2-d work. Such reproduction cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality. As the original work is still under copyright protection, any infringing reuse of the image in question is almost sure to infringe the rights of the original work's copyright owner. --Wcam (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: not a panorama. --Jcb (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: as per undeletion request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

[edit]

Renominating this image for deletion after previous deletion and undeletion requests. In short: this image is a mechanical copy of a copyrighted work, and China's copyright law does not allow unlimited reuse of such work.

Detailed reasons:

(I) The original work (painting) is under copyright protection because its creator, Zhang Zhenshi died only 1992, and the copyright protection duration in China is life plus 50 years.

(II) As opposed to photos like File:Lascar The Tian'anmen (4498194542).jpg which is a panorama and qualifies as a photographic work with its own separate copyright, this image in question is a mere mechanical reproduction of the original work, which "cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more. That rule applies internationally and, on Commons, is normally taken for granted." (Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Original_work)This is in line with WMF's official position on faithful reproductions. Given that this image, in and of itself, is not eligible for copyright protection (as opposed to a derivative work), we cannot slap a "free license" or any kind of license on it, the same way we cannot force a "free license" on the original work, i.e., it is meaningless to use a CC-BY on something that is not eligible for copyright protection.

(III) According to Article 22(10) of China's copyright law which is interpreted here as the "freedom of panorama" provision, there are "other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner" that cannot be infringed upon while photographing an outdoor public place. Also, from Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China:

“

Article 21 The exploitation of a published work which may be exploited without permission from the copyright owner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law shall not impair the normal exploitation of the work concerned, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner.

”

As this image is a mechanical copy of the original work, if it were allowed on Commons (which means this work is allowed to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose; COM:L), it may potentially violate the copyright owner's rights of publication, alteration, integrity, reproduction, distribution, etc., defined in Article 10. The point here is, it is entirely possible to use this picture for the same purpose as the original as a 2-dimensional painting work, which the Chinese law explicitly does not allow.

The following is my rebuttal to the reasons used in the previous undeletion request (original text quoted in italic):

  • FoP in mainland China seems more border than in other countries. There are no detailed regulations on 2D or 3D, commercial or uncommercial use, etc. The copyright law itself only claimed doing so is legal.
No, given the language "the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon" in Article 22, the law does not allow unlimited reuse of an exact duplicate.
  • According to a previous case, a photograph of a statue, even cropped to fit into a phone card is still considered legal. So Jcb and several other Wikimedians' comment "not a panorama" in the deletion request is groundless.
The case quoted here is about using a photo of a sculpture commercially. The court decision explicitly states that the photograph of Tian Tan Buddha and the sculpture work are two different works in nature; their expressions are different (天坛大佛的摄影作品与雕塑作品是两种不同性质的作品，两者的表达是不同的). A photo of a sculpture is not an exact duplicate of the original and can never be used for the same purpose as a sculpture. Any use of such photo is unlikely to infringe the sculpture creators' rights, which does not violate Article 22. Clearly this court decision cannot apply to the mechanical duplicate in question.
  • Article 22 (10) stated that photos of an "artistic work" apply. "Artistic work" should not only include statues, but also other forms of work. Photos should be "artistic work" according to Article 3.
This is true but is not where the problem is. It is WMF's official opinion that an unmodified photocopy is not an artistic work.
Again, no objection to this but it is not where the problem is.
  • Also, Article 18 of that interpretation claims that "The photographer, imitator, painter, and cameraman of the artistic work can use their works in a reasonable range and methods, and should not be considered violating copyright".
Reusing a mechanical duplicate of a copyrighted work for the same purpose as the original should not be considered as "in a reasonable range and methods", as established in (III).
  • Files on Wikimedia Commons should be free content. That means it can be used for commercial. This explanation released by the supreme court suggested that it could be used for commercial purposes.
Again, this is about a photo of a 3-D artwork, not a mechanical copy. It is interesting to note that, in this Supreme Court's explanation quoted here, it is indicated that the interpretation of "reasonable range and methods" in the previous bullet point is in line with the Berne Convention's "fair use", and a duplicate of an image is less likely to be considered "fair use" than other more typical examples of freedom of panorama.

It is therefore clear that under China's laws and regulations, reusing FoP work has to be within the range of "fair use". And also according to Commons' official policy COM:FU we do not accept fair use media files including reproductions of other copyrighted works, especially for such a blatant case of duplicating a copyrighted work.

--Wcam (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete per nom. Copyrighted by Zhang Zhenshi (1914–1992). Mao Zedong portrait attributed to Zhang Zhenshi and a committee of artists (see [2]). Marked as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The picture is still under the copyright of its creator who only died in 1992, and FoP does not apply as it obviously fails de minimis. Of course it is a shame to lose this iconic picture from Commons, but the bottom line is that it is still under copyright and so has no place on Commons. BabelStone (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the UDEL request by @Techyan: . Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Techyan above.
    Per Supereme People's Court [1995]民他字第38号函 (The Reply on copyright violation case, Zigong Wuxing Lantern Company vs. Zigong Bus Company), The 'Fair use' should meet this:
    2．该作品是专门为参加灯会创作的，灯会结束后，该作品即被运回存放，不另在公共场所设置或陈列，因而不应将其认定为“设置或者陈列在公共场所的艺术作品”（Quoted from [1995]民他字第38号函）
    2. The work was created specifically for the Lantern Festival. After the Lantern Festival, the work is shipped back to the store and is not set up or displayed in public places. Therefore, it should not be identified as 'art works set up or displayed in public places'.
    This reply means that as long as a work was not put in the outdoor public space for short-term display uses, it meets the definition of 'art works set up or displayed in public places'. As we all know, this work is put on Tian'anmen for a long time and is used for long-term display uses.
    Although it is WMF's official opinion that an unmodified photocopy is not an artistic work; however, it is true that it is the artistic work regulated under Chinese law.
    Please also see Duan and Hou vs. Jitong Network Guangdong Branch and Wang Juxian vs. Shaoxin Water Resources Bureau & Shaoxin Shencai Printing Co.,Ltd..
    --WQL (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not question the 'art works set up or displayed in public places' part of the issue. Regarding the two cases you mentioned, it is clear that photos of sculptures can be commercially reused. The evidence you provided by no means support your conclusion to keep this Mao Zedong portrait image. --Wcam (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you didn't read two cases I mentioned. I have checked the news, since Wang vs Shaoxing Water Resource Bureau involves some photos of some 2-D paintings permanently carved on stones as it is, and just the same situation as you take the photo of the portrait. As the file you quoted, the supreme Court never treat this kind of photography as violating any rights of copyright holder. --WQL (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 2D (painting) to 3D (sculpture) to 2D (photo) situation. Court decision determined the sculpture to be a creative derivative work with originality (涉案雕塑作品系通过改变原绘画作品表现形式而创作出的具有独创性的演绎作品), thus the photo is not a mechanical copy of the original painting. This is still a very different case. --Wcam (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should make my opinion clear:
  • First of all, the original portrait shall be treated as a 'service work' of Beijing Art Company, since it is mainly created by the material and technical conditions of the legal person (Beijing Art Company) for its employees' work tasks, and is held by legal persons or unincorporated units. According to Beijing Morning News (北京晨报), painters are all comes from this company and all portraits you see in this photo are duplications of a painting in 1967 by Wang Guodong as-it-is. So, the copyright protection was expired on 31 Dec 2017 and the original portrait is in public domain.
  • Secondly, the Copyright law has said,

    Article 21 The exploitation of a published work which may be exploited without permission from the copyright owner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law shall not impair the normal exploitation of the work concerned, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner.

  • Anyone with a little knowledge of copyright law knows that fair use in the concept of law does affect the property rights in copyright, and does not in any way affect the personal rights of the work. In the laws of the People's Republic of China, the property rights of the work refer to the right of reproduction, distribution, rental, exhibition, performance, screening, broadcasting, information network communication, filming, adaptation, translation, and compilation; The author's personal rights refer to the right to publish, sign, modify, and protect the integrity of the work.
  • Thirdly, Based on the definition of fair use mentioned above, according to Article 22 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, as long as the author's right of authorship is guaranteed, anyone can photograph and copy-paint the paintings displayed outdoors without infringing the author's copyright, and, who takes the photograph can execute their own copyrights, including the right of reproduction, distribution, rental, exhibition, performance, screening, broadcasting, information network communication, filming, adaptation, translation, and compilation, without the origin authors' permission.
  • Fourthly, Among all the civil laws of the People's Republic of China, the most important principle is the principle of Public Order and Good Custom, and the copyright law is no exception. As you can see, the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright refers to the view that,

[p]eople who copy, paint, photograph, or video the works of art prescribed in the preceding paragraph may The use of reasonable methods and scope does not constitute infringement.

Where reasonable grounds and scope are not clearly defined, this reasonable method and scope cannot be viewed only by the copyright law. Articles 8 and 10 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China make provisions on the principle of Public Order and Good Custom. From the perspective of fair use, the art works displayed outdoors (remarks: apparently containing two-dimensional works of art under the laws of the People’s Republic of China) have obvious properties of public welfare, and they could be copied in a reasonable way (painting, photography, copying) with the respect for the author's moral rights, which apparently does not violate the principle of public order and good customs. Following the principle of public order and good custom is a necessary condition for all civil acts in the People’s Republic of China to be legal. This principle is obviously shown in Letter of the Supreme People's Court concerning the reply to the "Report on the Request for Infringement of Copyright Disputes between Shandong Tianyi Advertising Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Hisense Communications Co., Ltd." of the Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court (a.k.a the Letter on The Wind of May). In the Letter on The Wind of May, the Supreme People's court consider the commercial use of the FoP works legal. So do this case -- I must underline that The copyright law of the People's Republic of China never do distinguish whether the art work is two-dimensional or three-dimensional.
In addition, it should be noted that, as far as I know, there are only Public Order and Good Custom principles in the civil law of the People's Republic of China that limit "reasonable approach and scope" in this case.
  • Finally, regardless of whether you take a picture of the work, where is the portrait of Mao Zedong, the act of taking photos alone is obviously not enough to damage the work (unless you go and pour ink onto this portrait, of course this is a criminal act), also obviously it is impossible to make any infringement of the author’s personal rights (as mentioned above, according to the panoramic freedom clause of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China and related judicial interpretations, the author’s copyright property rights are not protected under this circumstance), so there is no such situation in which Wcam claims to "unreasonably damage the legitimate interests of the copyright owner". Moreover, under some circumstances, the photographer may not even perform the obligation to sign the original work without violating the authors’ rights since the author and title of the work is not mentioned.

    如前所述，我国著作权法在免除社会公众在对室外公共场所雕塑进行临摹、摄影时需征得作者许可和支付报酬的义务的同时，赋予其应指明作者姓名和作品名称的义务。在一般情况下，社会公众只能依靠该室外艺术作品本身的标注来确认作者姓名和作品名称，而没有另行核实的义务。
    As mentioned above, China's Copyright Law exempts the public from the obligation to authorize the author's name and the name of the work while exempting the author from the obligation to authorize and pay for the copying of the sculpture in the outdoor public place. Under normal circumstances, the public can only rely on the annotation of the outdoor art work itself to confirm the author's name and the name of the work without any obligation to verify.
    ——Wang Juxian vs. Shaoxin Water Resources Bureau & Shaoxin Shencai Printing Co.,Ltd., the Supreme People's Court, （2013）民提字第15号

  • Above all, taking a photograph of the Mao Zedong Portrait on Tian'anmen and upload it to Wikimedia Commons neither violates others' copyright, nor violates the policies and guidelines of Wikimedia Commons. As long as the principle of Public Order and Good Custom is followed, we can always take the photo of all outdoor 2-D and 3-D art works for long-term exhibition uses in a "reasonable approach and scope".
--WQL (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the law, it can't. 《中华人民共和国著作权法实施条例》第二十一条　依照著作权法有关规定，使用可以不经著作权人许可的已经发表的作品的，不得影响该作品的正常使用，也不得不合理地损害著作权人的合法利益。--Wcam (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: After reading all of the above I'm simply not convinced that Chinese freedom of panorama exemptions restrict the use of this image that is publicly displayed in a permanent manner in a place open and accessible to the public. In addition, Chinese FoP explicitly allows for the reproduction of artistic works provided the original author is attributed. This requirement has been fulfilled. Wcam's rationale that this violates the author's article 21 rights is simply supposition without clear court cases or information to back up their claim. While a crop of otherwise FoP exempt images, such as the full shot File:Tiananmen beijing Panorama.jpg, would need consideration what we have on Chinese copyright law appears to allow such a thing due to the "artistic works" language. Finally, WQL's rebuttal of the nominator's claims were convincing. --Majora (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

[edit]

Nominating this image again to present new evidence supporting its deletion. As the closing admin of the previous DR mentioned a lack of court cases, User:Teetrition has recently discovered a court case where the commercial use of a photograph of a 2D artwork displayed on an outdoor billboard on the moon cake packaging were ruled to be infringing the copyright of said artwork. Therefore, commercial reuse of 2D artworks displayed permanently outdoor (as is the case of the image in question) would face imminent and serious copyright consequences, thus is against COM:L. Wcam (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Besides the case above, though still pending, the draft of Copyright Law of PRC (2014) gives a new proviso that art works in public places cannot be used in the same form of the original work, which is also a view shared by many famous professors of IP law in China and they have made the same interpretation to the provision of the current law (2020). And, FYI, see Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#FoP: court rules use of photo of an outdoor sculpture on postcards as infringement. Teetrition (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, another court case (2020) ruled by Beijing IP court said,

对此本院认为……著作权人对平面美术作品正常使用的方式相对单一，即自行或授权他人复制作品、在原作品基础上创作演绎作品再加以商业利用。如果认为只要一幅平面美术作品被置于公共场所，他人就可以在拍摄、绘画或临摹之后随意进行商业性使用，势必会严重影响美术作品著作权人对他人发放许可，并威胁到其收入来源，会构成与美术作品正常使用方式的冲突和影响著作权人的合法利益。
The Court believes that the general use of 2D art works by copyright owners is relatively simple, that is, copying works, creating derivative works on the basis of the original works for commercial use or authorizing others to do so. If a 2D art work is displayed in a public place, others can freely use it for commercial purposes after photographing, drawing or copying, the licensing and copyright owner's income will be seriously threatened, then the normal use of the work will be affected and the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by the copyright owner will be prejudiced.

So the file (File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg) cannot be used freely because Article 24 of the Copyright Law of PRC read,

In the following cases, a work may be used without permission of, and without payment of remuneration to the copyright owner, provided that the name or appellation of the author and the title of the work are indicated, the normal use of the work is not affected and the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by the copyright owner are not unreasonably prejudiced:
(10) copying, drawing, photographing or video-recording of a work of art put up or displayed in public places;

--Teetrition (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, per 《中华人民共和国最高人民法院民事判决书》（2013）民提字第15号 ruled by Supreme People's Court:

本案中，王巨贤为《康乾驻跸碑》等十一幅雕塑作品的原绘画作者，并授权东方公司使用其作品制作雕塑作品。……根据著作权法第二十二条第（十）项的规定，这种使用方式可以不经著作权人许可，不支付报酬，但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称。对于设置或者陈列于室外公共场所的包括雕塑在内的艺术作品允许他人未经许可以临摹、绘画、摄影、录像等方式进行使用，包括对所形成的成果以合理的方式和范围再行使用，是我国著作权法及相关司法解释规定的合理使用方式的一种。对设置在室外公共场所的艺术作品，由于其可能已构成了户外环境的一部分，如果要求社会公众相关的临摹等活动都需经过著作权人的许可，显然对公众的自由限制过大，而且客观上无法实现，故对该类艺术作品的著作权进行一定的限制，也是各国著作权法的通例。
In this case, Wang Juxian was the original painter of eleven sculptures including "The Stele of Kang Gan's Residence", and authorized Dongfang Company to use his works to make sculptures. ... According to the provisions of Article 22 (10) of the Copyright Law, this method of use may be used without the permission of the copyright owner and without payment of remuneration, but the name of the author and the title of the work should be specified. For artistic works including sculptures set up or displayed in outdoor public places, others are allowed to copy, paint, photograph, video, etc. without permission, including re-use of the results in a reasonable manner and scope, it is one of the fair use methods stipulated in our country's Copyright Law and related judicial interpretations. For works of art set up in outdoor public places, since they may have formed part of the outdoor environment, if the copying and other activities related to the public are required to obtain the permission of the copyright owner, it is obviously too restrictive to the freedom of the public, and objectively It cannot be realized, so it is also a general practice of copyright laws of various countries to impose certain restrictions on the copyright of such works of art.

Obviously, in 2013, Supreme People's Court did not opposite that a painting was remade into another photo through the 2D->3D->2D way. ---Njzjz (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: @Njzjz, please note that in the case you gave, the original painting is not displayed in a public place and the original painting's copyright owner authorized Dongfang Company to make sculpture using the painting (so the sculpture's copyright owner is probably Dongfang Co. instead of the painting's author). And what is displayed in the public place is the sculpture (instead of the painting). We DO agree that one can take the photo of a sculpture and use it freely and even commercially!
The draft of the Copyright Law of PRC (2014) and many professors in IP law who think one cannot reproduce and use the art work in the same form as the original work also hold the views that one CAN take a photo of a sculpture and use it commercially without copyright owner's permission. So you have to give a 2D to 2D case, instead of a 3D to 2D case (or 2D -> 3D -> 2D, 2D -> 2D -> 3D -> 2D, …… -> 3D -> 2D) to rebut the nomination. Many people have made the same mistake in previous talks that they've used 3D to 2D cases to rebut the nomination.
And, 2 cases given above both ruled that one cannot use the picture of a 2D art work, which is sufficient to prove that one using the picture of a 2D art work is at risk. Teetrition (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to point is that Mao Zedong portrait (2D) is a main part of Tian'anmen (3D). When you take a photo of Tiananmen, you have to also include Mao Zedong portrait in the photo. This is more like Wang Juxian's case, where his 2D work is also a part of 3D work. I will support you if Mao Zedong portrait is not a main part of any 3D buildings but just put outside.--Njzjz (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the file nominated for deletion was the panorama view of Tiananmen including the portrait, I would definitely vote {{Vk}}. See COM:DM.
However, the file is the Mao portrait which faithfully reproduced the painting at the Tiananmen gate.
And, few 2D art works are just put outside. They are usually a part of a building or a 3D object! Moreover, the Copyright Law was amended in 2020 and indoor art works were added to the FoP provision. Can I upload a copyrighted painting displayed in a gallery to Commons because the painting is a part of the gallery building? The answer is obviously no.
And, in Wang Juxian's case, the defendant take the picture of the sculpture instead of the original painting. The sculpture is a derivative work and there is an independent copyright. The original 2D work is not a part of the sculpture though the sculpture is made on the basis of the painting! Teetrition (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC), modified at 08:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you think File:Chairman_Mao.jpg and File:ForbiddenCity_MaoZedongPortrait_(pixinn.net).jpg is OK, when other parts of the building is also included in the photo? Njzjz (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are OK, and these files cannot be further cropped. Although they may not meet COM:DM, there are no de minimis standard in mainland China, professors and courts of PRC usually judge by the originality and use of these FoP photos. Teetrition (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, this is no longer bound for Chinese FOP, regardless of attribution or commercial/non-commercial use. Essentially this is already a "freedom of faithful reproduction" and not "freedom of panorama" to me; no more presence of frames and at least a few meters of the walls of Tiananmen (if not the whole building). This means the normal use of the work has been affected and the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by the copyright owner has been unreasonably prejudiced (rewording the clause at the Chinese law). Some non-commercial uses may have been affected too by this exact reproduction. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per the precautionary principle. From what I gathered this is mainly about the question if Chinese FoP allows you to isolate works that are displayed outside, showing only that work, or if it only allows to show those works as part of a panoramic view. Apparently there's case law and legal commentary supporting the latter, and the Supreme Court decision cited is not about this exact question. So I have serious doubts if Chinese FoP allows this file, and have therefore decided to delete it per the precautionary principle. If you disagree, you can (once again) try to argue the case at COM:UNDEL. We have a named author of this painting who died in 1992, and the People's Republic of China has 50 years pma, so the file can be restored in 2043. --Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mao_Zedong_portrait.jpg&oldid=821807340"