Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Derivative works on Andy Warhol

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.

Files in Category:Derivative works on Andy Warhol

[edit]

These five images are direct derivatives of Andy Worhol's artwork. The original works and the licensing of derivatives are protected by the Andy Warhol Foundation, see http://www.warholfoundation.org/faq/index.html. It should be noted that ticket:2009012510001013 applies to the images of the cans with Warhol's work as the packaging. In the case of the cover of GraffitiArt magazine, there is no evidence of a release by the magazine.

Fæ (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image "In the style of Andy Warhol.jpg" is exactly what the description says: "own work made in the style of Andy Warhol". There are no laws against copying a style. MichaelPhilip (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is more than just "in the style of", it has been used on multiple language Wikipedias to misleadingly illustrate Andy Warhol's work. This is neither a parody, nor can it be "own work" as the underpinning photograph of Marilyn Monroe has been taken from her "white fur" series, with horizontal orientation swapped. Could you please declare the source of the photograph for this work, so that its claimed copyright status can be confirmed?
Perhaps not horizontal swapped after all, I find the same image used commercially, for example at http://media.kunst-fuer-alle.de/img/13/m/13_my06111.jpg.
A little research leads me to believe this photograph is copyright of the Michael Ochs Archive. Without a source being provided, the precautionary principle must apply. --Fæ (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the copyright claim difficult to accept at face value. Did Andy Warhol add sufficient creative design to the Campbell's design to establish new copyright? My inclination is, no, he didn't. There are many cases in which a person puts significant creative energy into something, but no new copyright is established; for instance, many logos covered by {{PD-textlogo}} were created by expert designers who were paid well for their work. So, there is no clear connection between "put a lot of creativity into something" and "established a legal copyright claim to something." I wonder if Warhol's work, or something similar, has been litigated? -Pete F (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think the same than Pete F. The question is: Was Warhol creative enough to consider his work under a new copyright protection? Were his intervenctions on M. Monroe or the Campbell cans so determining to establish new standards of creativity? I don't think so. Fma12 (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: OTRS had been filed on some of these images, others are grafitti which are not covered by copyright. Per Pete F. on the copyright claims, the images were retained. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Derivative_works_on_Andy_Warhol&oldid=156112583"