Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Prada Marfa

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:Prada Marfa

[edit]

Subject is in Texas and is an artistic sculpture, rather than a building (defined as "structures that are habitable by humans..."), so {{FoP-US}} does not apply: permission from Ronald Rael and/or Virginia San Fratello(edited on 23:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC): this should likely be Elmgreen & Dragset, see my comment below) would be necessary.

Storkk (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating File:Prada Installation near Marfa, TX (Winter 2014).jpg Storkk (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prada Marfa Reclassified as Museum Sept. 2014

Hi, I was checking into this and in Sept 2014, the Tx-DoT reclassified the structure as a museum with the non-profit organization, Ballroom Marfa Foundation, holding the lease. Source can be found here: http://chron.com/life/style/travel/article/APNewsBreak-Texas-will-allow-Prada-Marfa-to-stay-5751514.php LifeHarmonizes (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC) copied from talk page. @LifeHarmonizes: please respond HERE in future to keep discussion centralized, or your comments may not be seen. Storkk (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that regardless of how the DoT classifies it, the definition as regards Freedom of Panorama is whether it's "habitable by humans". Given that its door reportedly doesn't open, I think this is still a sculpture as regards FoP. Storkk (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Carl if he would weigh in. Storkk (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I misidentified the authors in my nomination, and have now corrected that. Thanks to Niubrad for pointing that out. Storkk (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Oof. This is an interesting question whether it was a sculpture or a building. Frankly... it is designed for humans to be able to go inside (even if the door is permanently shut, it is still possible for humans to enter) and it would mimic existing buildings -- not sure the structural part can really cause a photo to be a derivative work. It's a very simplistic building to begin with, as well, so that form may not be copyrightable to begin with. The arrangement of the items on the inside is likely a different matter... if there is a photo focusing on those aspects that could be an issue. I don't see the DoT designation as mattering (it was to avoid having this work be subject to an advertising law) but the fact that you can legitimately consider it a structure with a museum exhibit inside does sort of speak to it being closer to a building for copyright law. A lot of the coolness of the work is the incongruity of its placement, but that is a not a copyrightable aspect. It's a tough call, and I can see arguments the other way, but given that it is a structure, and it's very very simple as well, I'd have to guess that a photo of the outside may not qualify as a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: There is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S. This was built as an art project, whether it was reclassified by the state it is in to be a building, only makes FOP more of an issue. I see both sides of this issue and this is a very tough close, but I'm going to err on the side of caution here. I've seen plenty of art which probably could have been considered "too simple to copyright" but it's still copyright. Examples include Mondrian and all the minimalist sculptors of the midcentury. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Prada_Marfa&oldid=224819491"