Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oobi Grampu Eyes - Hand Puppet Street Art.jpg

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:Oobi Grampu Eyes - Hand Puppet Street Art.jpg

Freedom of panorama in the UK is not provided for simple paintings but requires a work of "artistic craftsmanship". De728631 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: Dan Newso was the creator of this work. According to Newso's website, all of his work in Digbeth (including the one in the photograph) was made by compressing cement "to give the feeling of a painting on a concrete wall," decorating it, and then placing the cement sculpture in a publicly-accessible area. Since Newso created the cement wall in the photo, I thought that it qualified as a work of artistic craftsmanship (especially considering how similar Newso's concrete texture technique is to "fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements" and hand-painted tiles). Would you agree? --Squiddaddy (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, if the wall is part of the artwork I think it is covered by freedom of panorama. I'd like to hear some more opinions though so let's at least wait for the closing admin. De728631 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Delete

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Part I, section 4 Artistic works.

"(1)In this Part “artistic work” means—

(a)a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,

(b)a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or

(c)a work of artistic craftsmanship."

While "work of artistic craftsmanship" is not well defined, it is clearly different from both graphic works and sculpture. I would argue that if the wall is the creation of the artist, it is sculpture, but the painting on the wall is a graphic work. The former is covered by FOP but the latter is not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The wall is sculpture and the wall is the work. I would agree if the wall and the decorations on it were created by separate artists, or if the painted parts were not originally part of the work, but that is not the case. Everything decorating the wall is simply part of the larger sculpture, like any sculpture that includes painted designs or has been painted at all. If the same paintings were on a two-dimensional canvas and not on a sculpture, they would be graphic works. The same goes for hand-painted tiles: if the paintings were not on tiles, they would not be covered by freedom of panorama. However, since they are on tiles/sculptures, they are covered. Newso's cement wall technique is extremely similar to hand-painted tiles and "fabric with a highly textured surface including 3D elements.” I cannot find anything under the "Artistic works" section that forbids sculptures or other works with elements that would be considered graphic works had they not been part of a sculpture. --Squiddaddy (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this for other comments. I am inclined to accept you argument that this is simply a painted sculpture. Unfortunately, your comparing this to tiles cuts the wrong way. Tiles are "works of artistic craftsmanship" and are not included in FOP in the UK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: My apologies. Simply ignore the part about hand-painted tiles. --Squiddaddy (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Deleted: This is a difficult one. I think there are fair arguments to be made both ways, as has been done in this deletion request. Unfortunately, that means a deletion per COM:PRP. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)