Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Italia, 1958) - BEIC 6341427.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:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Italia, 1958) - BEIC 6341427.jpg

[edit]

Copyviol. Otrs is not for the depicted art works see Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Derived_of_modern_art._Otrs.3F Pierpao.lo (listening) 20:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete So Pablo Picasso granted Cardazzo of the full commercial use right of his own works (in property of Cardazzo) and Cardazzo granted Paolo Monti of the full commercial use right of Pablo Picasso Works he photographed. It's sounds a bit far from a OTRS ticket. Anyway If we had changed the rule, we can write a new page Commons:Go in a street gallery a shot what you want. (its enough you claim to have full rights) :). Seriously:
  1. In the tiket BEIC claims to owns *all rights* of the photographs. Does Beic say to have *all rights* of the original artwork when a photo is a Commons:Derivative works too?
  2. The fact that the photographer is famous does not worth a cent, indeed that seems an excuse or, worse, a justification for the Glam project.
  3. Commons does not accept photographs of copyrighedt artworks, incorporating an authorization to the photographer. We use otrs by the author of the artwork, or... deletion.
  4. The owner of the artwork has not the copyright of the Artowork without a valid License.
  5. The photographer has not the full copyright of the Artwork without a valid License.
  6. It'a long time that Glam claimed the full rights by Paolo Monti. Now I do not think that Picasso in person give the full copyright of its own work to Monti or Cardazzo. I mean a license like CC-BY-C. (without n). But only to share photos by the media (books, magazine, newspapers) of theirs time and since, as I know, Paolo Monti never meet Picasso.
  7. Ihmo it's better that we check that authorization by Pablo Picasso, the Paolo Monti archive it's very very very large. An human mistake is likely and even acceptable, I add, but whe should check. In the meantime we can delete the file. We have others pictures more explicative of Milena Milani. Then restore after that BEIC have shown the authorization they had got.
  8. In the end. It's very sad but, in IT Wikipedia, Glam project has been informally but pubblically told by a lot of people, someone administrator, to be a bit obsessive about the picures of Paolo Monti. I think that is the right time to verify the hypotesis that it's not full compliant with some of those pictures

--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Pablo Picasso's release would be a matter of public interest and a public record. OTRS is not an information hoarding device to make these legal matters obscure, there is absolutely no reason for the copyright of this work to be buried in confidential records, as there is no possible copyright holder that needs to hide their identity. Publish the records so that there can be proper scrutiny, or delete this work per COM:PRP. --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We have no reason to disbelieve the statements made by the BEIC Foundation and their lawyer(s). In the off chance their is any conflict, a DMCA can be filed by someone with proper authority over the arts copyright at which point the images will be taken down while the matter is sorted by BEIC, WMF and the one that claims copyright. Regarding Commons:PRP, it says there needs to be "significant doubt" which I don't believe we have. The BEIC Foundation legal team have looked over this issue and I see no reason to doubt them. - Offnfopt(talk) 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point to where there has been a statement by the BEIC or a lawyer that the commercial rights of the artist (not the photographer) have been transferred to the purchaser or gallery? The statement given in this DR makes no mention about it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment So, as the work was made for Carlo Cardazzo, the copyright was transferred to him by Italian law. I think that it's not impossible to obtain an OTRS permission from the heirs. Meanwhile, lacking a proof, I would say  Delete. --Ruthven (msg) 10:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not skip over the presumption that Picasso agreed a contract to transfer his commercial rights to Cardazzo. So far nobody has provided any evidence that that happened, nor has anyone made a legally binding statement about it. A statement that Cardazzo's heirs gave away their potential claim of copyright in the photograph, is not the same thing as a statement that Picasso never had any rights over his own creative work. As far as I'm aware, there is nothing special in Italian law that denies an artist the right to claim the intellectual property in their own work, just because someone commissioned them to create it. I would be happy to be corrected, if someone can provide a link or reference to the copyright act that effectively bypasses the normal practice we see everywhere else in Europe. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fæ: If it's a work for hire, the copyright belongs to the contractor; Cardazzo in this case, possibly. --Ruthven (msg) 14:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The set, based on the description, is Picasso's. The contract to be checked for copyright transfer must have Picasso as a party. --Fæ (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Is there any real reason in keeping this open? A member of OTRS approved the files permissions and since then that permission has been revoked by other OTRS members. So seems based on OTRS this is now un-authorized, so that pretty much puts a nail in the coffin till new information is provided. So seems there is no real reason in keeping this open, because anything else that will happen with this should be happening through the OTRS system. - Offnfopt(talk) 00:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Offnfopt: To clarify, we have permission for Paolo Monti's photographs in general, but not for the underlying work in this photograph, which is certainly not de minimis. We need both to keep. You are welcome to change your keep.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Offnfopt: see Commons:Derivative works. The otrs tkcket has been released for the whole Paolo Monti archive and based on the Beic declaration to have full rights of Paolo Monti pictures. But to have full rights of a derivative works you need to have full rights of the original work too. This is I say: Beic without an authorization form the painter has no right on Pablo Picasso work--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"But to have full rights of a derivative works you need to have full rights of the original work too": any source for this? Because, you know, the Cassazione said something different. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Federico Leva (BEIC): That's untrue. Cassazione says that a derived work can have a copyright by itself (e.g. I take a photo of your sculpture, you cannot treat my photo as your work). Corte di Cassazione, Sezione 1 civile; Sentenza 12 marzo 2004, n. 5089. We already had this conversation in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luciano Minguzzi but you keep ignoring it and twisting the judgement following your own personal interpretation. --Ruthven (msg) 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you hold the true and only interpretation of the Cassazione and can proclaim everybody else to be "twisting" it. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Question It's not only me, actually. So I ask: have you read the text from the Court? Can you cite the passage that says that a picture of an artwork removes the author's rights? --Ruthven (msg) 09:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep i do not see any reason to doubt the clear statement of an institution. we have never required the Library of Congress to submit a deed of gift or rights transfer for their items. see also template:PD-Bain etc etc. if you want to change the clear consensus, submit a proposal. i see this is a recent theme among the cynics. they need to stop disrupting commons with the cynicism. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many deletions of uploads from the Library of Congress. Those deletions were factually correct and based on unambiguous copyright law. Hardly the same thing as disruption. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what i said, but still waiting on the mass deletion of the highsmith upload. there are a bunch of items parked in a maintenance category, which is a different process than that here. wonder why? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and raise DRs for any relevant Highsmith photographs. Though Highsmith gave a correct release of her photographs, many of her subjects include artworks with likely copyright, which mean the photograph is a derived work. Those cases have no special rules compared to this one. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add, Slowking4, that here the operators from the institution base their claim on a Court decision that they clearly do not know first hand, and thus misinterpret. --Ruthven (msg) 13:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i'm so glad you have this opportunity to school this institution with your superior understanding. requiring people to check with you personally about your superior understanding is disruptive; it is not a standard of practice known outside of wikiland; and many institutions are not uploading here after getting bitten in this way. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm, personal attacks and factually incorrect statements are not going to help this DR. Find something else to do unless you have something to add which is focused on facts and verifiable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a personal attack; it is an attack on a broken attitude and broken process: this is the fact of commons; but what facts here? this is all commons interpretation, and dictating terms to a cultural institution. the facts are "verifiable", but un-verified. and the tribunal is opaque and unaccountable. but it's all good - delete away other people's files, they did not know how to navigate the impersonal wall of rejection. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No broken attitude here: there is an upload for which the clarification provided does not suffices. As it is to the uploader to give all the needed proofs that a file can be freely used , we are kindly expecting those proofs to be shown. No proof, no file: it is as simple as that. --Ruthven (msg) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it suffices for me, based on a long standing standard of practice. what is the objective standard of proof? are you practicing a moving goalpost? just pitch and then you will let us know where the strike zone is? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - can be undeleted as soon as a proper permission arrives. --Jcb (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paolo_Monti_-_Servizio_fotografico_(Italia,_1958)_-_BEIC_6341427.jpg&oldid=266897042"