Commons:Deletion requests/File:Otter Tail County Historical Museum-05.jpg

File:Otter Tail County Historical Museum-05.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

KEEP We have had discussions about this in the past. Architectural elements/design versus artwork. It is a vague and understandable error, as buildings nowadays are void of design elements. Back in the 1900s, in the City Beautiful Movement, while famous artists did signature artwork pieces (and copyrighted), much of was looked at as design that was simply part of the building. In the future, as I have requested before, please provide your own rationale rather than just a FoP template. I consider doing such an abuse of power. While many are FoP can be obvious copyright violations many others are not. If you cannot be bothered to provide your own comments to defend your actions you should really reconsider how you are doing what you are doing. This is not about racking up statics for most edits. Myotus (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The photo, as far as I can tell, shows animal "sculptures" as part of a fence. I wouldn't call that a 2D work, because a fence is 3D and the animal "sculptures" aren't just painted on it, so they are also 3D works. So the nomination is a bit confusing. However, the defense above is equally confusing because the image isn't showing a building? It's a fence? So, the question is: what's the FoP's stance on fences with artistic elements? Are fences utilitarian per se? Or are fences with clear decorative elements protected like sculptures or some other type of artwork? Nakonana (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Also no FOP for 3D works in the United States. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What about the utalitarian aspect? Are fences considered art work or utalitarian? The photo shows an integral part of a fence — it could be seen as art or "just a fence". Nakonana (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@A1Cafel, can you please answer @Nakonana's questions directed to you. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There might be a stronger case for A1Cafel if there were consistency in what is nominated for deletion. There appears to be a strong bias to call architectural design elements using recognizable images "art" and nominate them for deletion but to completely ignore abstract architectural elements called "art" that are tied to an artist. See "Hive (artwork)" which has been posted on the Commons for 12 years as a case in point. Additionally, it is concerning, at least in the US, that states considered to be part of the fly-over country are the ones that usually have their photos targeted for deletion, while coastal states, especially those of NYC, are often left untouched. Again see Hive (artwork) as well as File:Albemarle Playground td (2023-04-29) 06.jpg and File:Community Garden Fence Art (14645742175).jpg and File:Kissena Park. Train on entrance fence. 20200920 144355.jpg and even File:Brooklyn Bears Communtiy Garden 4.jpg (that also has a billboard violating copyright). As far as Wikpedia's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I do prefer to reframe it as Wikipedia's "Do as a say not as I do" rule for the privileged so they can keep photos of their interests (usually white, male and urban). Myotus (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)