Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mumia graffiti.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.
As 2D street art in New Zealand, the terms of FOP in this case are debatable, and might make this image unsuitable for hosting on Commons. At least it needs a discussion, I feel. Courcelles 03:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seems a bit ambiguous. Doesn't specifically mention graffiti either. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is, which brings the COM:PCP into play. Courcelles 04:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Do we have any precedents? FunkMonk (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that the guidelines are "ambiguous"; rather, they are silent on the matter of graffiti painted on building walls. In the absence of any clear provision for graffiti art within the scope of ROP in New Zealand (or the UK, on whose ROP provisions NZ's are apparently based) surely we must err on the side of caution and assume that the work is not freely reproducible. Under the interpretation similar photographs hosted on Commons for which we don't have permission of the graffiti artist should be deleted as well—this would include the photographs on en:Banksy, for example. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure if that's the right conclusion, considering these diverse exceptions: "In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making. Copinger and Skoane James suggests that original jewellery is another candidate." We really need some precedents. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course we need precedents. What I am arguing is that if we do not find any, then we cannot simply assume that photographs of graffiti are freely redistributable, because nothing in the list of exceptions states or even clearly implies that they are. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- True. None of the Banksy images seem to have been deleted though, would probably be a better place to start, as it would attract more attention and intensive efforts to solve it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banksy in London. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nice, I see it has already received replies from more people than this one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banksy in London. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- True. None of the Banksy images seem to have been deleted though, would probably be a better place to start, as it would attract more attention and intensive efforts to solve it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course we need precedents. What I am arguing is that if we do not find any, then we cannot simply assume that photographs of graffiti are freely redistributable, because nothing in the list of exceptions states or even clearly implies that they are. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure if that's the right conclusion, considering these diverse exceptions: "In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making. Copinger and Skoane James suggests that original jewellery is another candidate." We really need some precedents. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is, which brings the COM:PCP into play. Courcelles 04:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- So the Banksy images were kept. Shouldn't that be precedent enough for this file? FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: keep? FASTILY (TALK) 06:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
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 graphic work in New Zealand B dash (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment We have {{Non-free graffiti}} and it's not a deletion template. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- IMO not occasional graffiti. --B dash (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: {{Non-free graffiti}} covers this. --Yann (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
