Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin

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:George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin

[edit]

While FOP exists in Germany and it might cover murals, however this appears to be a derivative of a copyrighted photograph of the subject, which the painter is not able to "release".

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be enough abstraction between the original image and the painting. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GPSLeo. लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनो भवन्तु (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity: What would be the issue if there weren't? FOP in Germany appears to cover murals, but I could not find legal evidence that one has to verify the originality of the photographed works. The original painter did not "release" their derivative work; the main issue IMO is whether this even matters at all and whom the rights holder would be able to raise claims against at all. --stk (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a photo of graffiti on a wall, that may in itself be derivative, is not derivative. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its fair, some of my drawings depicting people, which I uploaded here, were actually deleted from the site because they were «derivated works». It will not be fair to keep this photographs, for me that would not be right. We should be fair people. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we talk about fairness it would be better to keep these as they have an important political message. As there is many art around based on these image it would may be the best to find the creator of the original image or is it a selfie, I am not sure. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I think its also fair that we keep the drawing I made myself for the page of wrestling fugure Kemonito - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_TheBellaTwins1445#Files_uploaded_by_TheBellaTwins1445_%28talk_%C2%B7_contribs%29 TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I can't see any violation of a copy right. The artist placed the graffiti in public space and wanted to send a clear message. To delete this on Commons would mean sending a completely wrong signal. --Stolp (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The mural and the photo depict the same person so there are bound to be similarities, but to call the mural a derivative work based on the selfie is like calling this sculpture a derivative of this one. -- Malatinszky (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep FOP covers this photo no matter how the copyright status of the graffiti itself might be. // Martin K. (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No! FOP, or freedom of panorama as it is called, is the right to photograph copyrighted works without the 2D-photograph infringing on the underlying artwork you've photographed. If the artwork however is a copyright infringement, so does the 2D-photograph become. You can't make a Micke Mouse sculpture and place it in the public and therby be allowed to upload photos of it, since only Disney is allowed to place their work in public. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this really the case? Is this an issue the person invoking FOP has to check and verify, or is this a problem the graffito artist has with the original rights holder? I have been digging for leading cases regarding this and haven't found anything so far. --stk (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In order to permanently place an artwork in to "the public" they need to have the legal authority and ability to do so. If you do not own the copyright of the artwork, you can't legally place it in the public without that being a copyright infringement. FOP states that a photo of a copyrighted object in public does not infringe n the artist copyright, however, if the artist doesn't hold the copyright, then...FOP can't be invoked. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a copyright holder places a work permanently in public, then it "limit the right of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the creators and distributors of such images. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize the creation and distribution of derivative works." If the copyright owner of the picture was not the one who placed the artwork in the public, then it hasn't "given away" their rights. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would totally see this argument if the artwork in case were the original artwork that is supposedly being infringed upon. This is, however, definitely not the case. The argument seems to hinge around the question whether the depicted graffito is a derivative works of its own according to § 24 Abs. 1 UrhG. If it is, it is in and of itself a protected work that does not need permission by the rights holder of the work from which it was derived. The way it is contextualized with a political slogan, as well as the production style with (possibly) a distinctive style of spraypainting by the artist can each be arguments for the graffito to be covered by at least the same umbrella of copyright legislation as the selfie that the work was based upon. Just out of curiosity: Are there precedents where the Wiki Commons community starts trying to preemptively delete images of works of art because they suspected them to be copyright infringement themselves? --stk (talk)
            • We delete on a precautionary principle (COM:PCP) since we only want free work we are sure are ok. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • As in my contribution above, I would totally see this argument if the artwork in case were the original photograph. This is still not the case. There is ample evidence that the graffito constitutes a work of its own, that, in turn, falls unter FOP. --stk (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Addendum: If you still believe that this graffito cannot constitute a Freie Benutzung according to § 24 UrhG and therefore a original work, would you mind going ahead and also mark the photographs of the Brezhnev/Honecker mural for deletion? It is also based on a protected photograph (Corbis currently holds the rights to it) and is painted on a wall in Berlin. --stk (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: consensus is that these images are FOP-Germany. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:George_Floyd_mural_Mauerpark_Berlin&oldid=879368828"