Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sandy Calder 3 disks 1 lacking 1968 no c.JPG
The "no visible copyright notice" rationale gets applied to photographs and documents, but as far as I'm aware does not apply to statues or other 3D modern artworks. Happy to be corrected by the part of U.S. law that clarifies this, however as a rationale for a public domain work, I would like to see this tested.
Addendum, refer to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf. The intent is to define how publications require copyright notices. As statues are not publications, this seems irrelevant to determine their copyright. --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep Note that Circular 3 covers the 1975 law, which is not applicable to this 1968 work. The Copyright Act of 1909 calls for notice on all copyrighted works. For sculpture
- "... the notice may consist of the letter C inclosed within a circle, thus:(C), accompanied by the initials, monogram, mark, or symbol of the copyright proprietor: Provided, That on some accessible accessible portion of such copies or of the margin, back,permanent base, or pedestal, or of the substance on which such copies shall be mounted, his name shall appear." see Section 18 at http://www.copyright.gov/history/1909act.pdf
I see Calder's initials here, and the date, but not the (C) or the word "Copyright", so I think {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment Also, Circular 3 discusses "works" in general, not "publications". On page two under "Visually Perceptible Copies", it specifically mentions the requirements for "sculptural works". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) I'll strictly refer to the 1909 act as you correctly suggest, therefore ignoring the rationale you raised with regard to Circular 3 as irrelevant, as the 1909 act makes no statement about sculptural works apart from statues in connection to copies. The 1909 act section 18, depends on section 9 ("That the notice of copyright required by section nine of this Act shall [...]") and section 9 says "That any person entitled thereto by this Act may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this Act". Again a single original work of art that is a statue is not a publication. Though the 1909 act mentions "pedestal" (sec.18), this is in relation to "copies", such as one might have for mass produced models. This reading is backed up by the penalties section of the 1909 act, sec.25, where the word "statue" is used twice, but only in relation to "infringing copy".
- Though section 5 lists a typology for registering works and includes "(g) Works of art; models or designs for works of art" and cross references this list in section 18, there is nothing in the text that requires that this apply to original works (i.e. non-copies) that are not "publications" in any conventional or legal definition of that word.
- Consequently I believe that the 1909 act in a straight-forward reading never intended to apply to original unique statues, but may apply to derivative publications, models and copies of original 3D works of art. --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep As the photographer and uploader, I'll note that I looked very closely at the sculpture for any and all writing on it and found nothing other than the "CA 68" noted above (you can see this on the photo on the leg nearest to the viewer) "CA" is the working signature for the artist Alexander Calder III ("Sandy" Calder) and 68 is the year it was completed and then purchased for the City of Philadelphia by Edmund Bacon (father of Kevin!) with the city's money + money from the National Endowment of the Arts. Since the sculpture is made of flat pieces of steel and a bit over 8 feet tall, it is very easy to see all the surfaces and there is definitely no other writing on the sculpture or the base. The Smithsonian maintains a record of many prominent pieces of public art in the US (though they didn't do the surveys themselves to the best of my knowledge) Their record is here. It's a bit odd, but I think the record has a small mistake, the date is given as 1964, with the installation date as 1969. Otherwise everything is exactly as in my photo, excluding that the sculpture was moved about 4 blocks (but that's a well known fact). SIRIS gives a reference to the book "Fairmount Park Art Assoc., "Sculpture of a City: Philadelphia's Treasures in Bronze & Stone," NY: Walker Publ., 1974," which was published before the move. I've studied that book in the local library for info on many public sculptures in Philadelphia and can assure you that the photo in the book shows the same artwork as is shown in my photo.
So the basic relevant facts from SIRIS - Calder died in 1976. The work was displayed in public (published) in 1969. It is owned by the City of Philadelphia. The work is signed and dated, but no other writing is noted (they usually include all writing on the sculptures and related plaques).
Hope this helps. Smallbones (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment This ground has been covered before in Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, in particular in the paragraph:
- "Applying these elements to statues means that if the statue was placed in a public location without restrictions on copying prior to 1978, the work was probably published. If the published work did not comply with the copyright formalities (notice requirements), the copyright ended, placing the statue in the public domain. However, it is important to remember that statues and public art that complied with formalities requirements at the time of publication could still fall under copyright protections."
This was put into Commons on Jan.6, 2012 by the WMF legal team in response to a user question. It is not the law itself, or even legal advice, but an opinion of the WMF legal team on where the law stands as a starting point for community discussion. Given this opinion and the length of time our editors have relied on it, that we at least temporarily respect it, carry on any further discussion at Commons talk:Public art and copyrights in the US, and if we feel like "reversing it" we go back to WMF legal for further input first. Smallbones (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Fæ, I don't understand. It looks to me that you are saying that under the 1909 Act, that one-off sculptures are not covered by copyright? Or do I misread you? There's a great deal of precedent here and elsewhere to contradict you.
For one thing, I don't think you will find the word "publication" in the 1909 Act applied to a created work. The word is used only in the technical copyright sense of the event of disclosing the work to the public. For another, as you note, the Act includes "works of art" in its section 5 enumeration of works covered and sculptures are certainly works of art. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Could you provide a link to a legal case that makes the definition of publication used in the 1909 act extend to any public display, and confirms that the typology in section 5 does cover original sculptures rather than copies or models of original 3D works? The precedent would be something to rely on as you say. I acknowledge the WMF statement, but parts of it lack context for me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
