Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Afro Basaldella
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.
Files in Category:Afro Basaldella
[edit]There 1955 paintings are not the work of the uploader as claimed and still under copyright by the artist.
JuTa 18:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- We have a specific authorization for these modern art files from the museum for wiki loves monuments 2016. Please read file description. Paintings are obviously by Afro, non by the photographer (the user). --Sailko (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- But the museum does not own the copyright. Its the artist or his heirs. --JuTa 22:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's under museum's responsibility, the authorization is explicit (for all the contemporary collections works), so we do not have to care about that. See also Cariplo Artgate case. --Sailko (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- But the museum does not own the copyright. Its the artist or his heirs. --JuTa 22:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Sailko: What policy are you referring to that it's the museum's responsibility? If someone uploads a copyrighted image to Flickr under CCBYSA, is it their responsibility, so we can transfer it to commons? I don't understand your principle here. If the museum owns the copyright to all these works of art (dubious) then it can easily provide an OTRS. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: The museum guaranteed for those images, explicitly. They are an offical institution, not just a random Flickr user who doesn't know copyright status, they have a legal value. The OTRS is in WLM Italy 2016 papers. See here, we already discussed this matter, did you forget? Another similar case is Cariplo Artgate (institution guaranteed for modern artists copyrighted artworks into their collections). It's not only about Afro, we had Balthus, Chagall, Guttuso, Vedova, and some living artists... All checked and approved already. Please refer to the users tagged in this page if you need further information. --Sailko (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Sailko: No, I didn't forget. I followed up by starting a discussion here. Despite some comment, no one has yet clarified how the institution could possibly make such a statement and have it be legal. It's illogical. Linking to Category:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo a second time gives me no new additional information. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, there is no reason not to trust them. In Italy is very Common that institutions own the rights for reproductions of their art collections, besides the artists or under authorization of the artist, we don't need to know. You can ask the institution, but there is no reason to ask the museum to prove if they have all the rights or not. In case of complaints they are responsible, not us, because they explicitly authorized us to take pictures of their artworks (and their collection is only modern and contemporary art) and upload in Commons with free licence. This was asked very clearly in 2016, before the uploads were made. If you cannot read Italian you should ask for translation. The paper is actually very clear and explicit. We have such a few images allowed of contemporary art on Commons that we have to use all our efforts to protect them from deletion. --Sailko (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- You asked "Do Italian museums acquire the copyright to works that they own, making it possible for them to release them?" The answer is yes, why not? It is quite common, it happened already with the Cariplo Artgate, it happened again with BEIC collections of (modern) architecture photography... all these projects were years ago, there were already tons of discussions, hundred thousands of images uploaded and linked. You just have to trust the paper I linked you and that's it. I linked that in the permission field of all the images in the category, and on top of the category too. Hope it is clear enough now. --Sailko (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, there is no reason not to trust them. In Italy is very Common that institutions own the rights for reproductions of their art collections, besides the artists or under authorization of the artist, we don't need to know. You can ask the institution, but there is no reason to ask the museum to prove if they have all the rights or not. In case of complaints they are responsible, not us, because they explicitly authorized us to take pictures of their artworks (and their collection is only modern and contemporary art) and upload in Commons with free licence. This was asked very clearly in 2016, before the uploads were made. If you cannot read Italian you should ask for translation. The paper is actually very clear and explicit. We have such a few images allowed of contemporary art on Commons that we have to use all our efforts to protect them from deletion. --Sailko (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: we do have permissions by the copyright holder (or by the only institution legally entitled to exercise the rights on the works they are the keeper of). See Italia Law "ArtBonus" 29th July 2014, n. 106; published on the Gazzetta Ufficiale on 30th July 2014, n. 175 Ruthven (msg) 16:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)