Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toronto Street Art.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:Toronto_Street_Art.JPG

[edit]

This is an unauthorized derivative work. Freedom of panorama does not apply as it is a two-dimensional work. See the discussion at "Commons talk:Licensing#Chalk sidewalk portrait". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete The street painting is a derivative work of the original (public domain) painting and likely eligible for copyright on its own. Therefore a derivative work of the street painting cannot be freely licensed. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The photograph is a derivative copy of an original (and copyrighted) work (the sidewalk art), as per the above-noted discussion at Commons:Licensing. Not saved by FOP, as Canadian FOP does not apply to 2D works such as this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Simple technical reproduction of the painting File:Jan Vermeer van Delft 007.jpg without any own idea. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: the consensus at "Commons talk:Licensing#Chalk sidewalk portrait" was that because this was not a mechanical reproduction of the painting (for example, a photograph or a scan) but the work of a street artist, there was enough creativity in the creation of the work for it to have an independent copyright. The work would inevitably not have been identical to the original, though perhaps very similar. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment There are simple mechanical techniques to copy or enlarge paintings without scanner oder camera, many children learn that in school. A simple way is to divide a scan of the original painting into small squares and copy them part by part into the new painting. That's the way the most street art paintings are produced. Such "works" shurely don't reach the treshhold of originality and could never get an own copyright of their reproductions of Vermeer & Co. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know enough about street art to comment further on this. However, I would point out that as there is no information as to how this particular piece of street art came to be produced, we cannot assume that it was made using the method you described. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a precise copy either. The face, the jacket and the scarf are all similar, but different. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment@ Jack Lee : Yes, we can. *g* To gain an own copyright by reproducing the painting of an old master there must be changes, some kind of own idea, not only the try to reproduce it as exactly as possible by any technical mesure. Concerning this picture you can see the try to reproduce it as exactly as possible. I can find no own idea, point of view or originality. I can see no reason why should treat it as original artwork. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC) @ Skeezix : Faughts don't produce copyright. The painter would have no success if he would try to reclaim rights of this streetwork. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: My difficulty is that this is extending Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. beyond what the New York District Court discussed. Bridgeman held that "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality": see "Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag". However, we are not talking about a photograph or scan here, but an work by a human artist. As Skeezix1000 pointed out, the sample of street art here is not identical to Vermeer's original painting. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment OK. What exactly justifies the own copyright of the painting? The faults in reproduction? So a bad photograph of a Vermeer would produce a copyright of its own? By distortion? Faulty colours? No copy is absolutely identical to the original painting. --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a big assumption that the differences are faults, not deliberate choices by the sidewalk artist. And, agreed that no copy is absolutely identical, but I think what we're telling you, and what seemed to be the consensus at Commons talk:Licensing#Chalk sidewalk portrait, is that the changes here go beyond those of the trivial sort that one would ignore in assessing whether something is a mere technical copy or contains some originality. You're entitled to disagree, of course. And, as for "bad photographs", at some point, yes, distortions and other changes will at some point give rise to an original piece, as it ceases to be merely a derivate piece. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the picture again and can see nothing but a reproduction of a masterpiece and not a single new idea, others may decide, for me EOD. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some annotations of the major differences (there are more) to File:Toronto Street Art.JPG. -84user (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, this is not a mechanical reproduction and is thus protected by copyright, which makes this a derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Toronto_Street_Art.JPG&oldid=785549767"