Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ribon chair

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:Ribon chair

No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. The designer of these chairs, Pierre Paulin, was dead in 2009.

• File:Pierre Paulin Fauteuil 582 Ribbon Chair 2 Musée des arts décoratifs Paris.jpg
• File:Pierre Paulin Fauteuil 582 Ribbon Chair Musée des arts décoratifs Paris.jpg

Civa (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep FOP is irrelevant — this is nothing like the case of a building or a statue in public space. The question here is not that of "original creation" in the sense of a work of art, but of industrial design. Industrial design which is widely accepted on Commons — think cars. Rama (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Delete Sculpture; U.S. copyright law says utilitarian objects can be copyrighted if they have "sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  By your interpretation, cars are sculptures. So your interpretation is, in practice, wrong. Rama (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  Wrong. Vehicular design features are not capable of existing independently from the utilitarian aspects of the vehicle, because they are the utilitarian aspects. One can argue that this is applied art; applied arts are copyrightable subject matter under French law.] ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  No more nor less than the chair is a utilitarian sitting machine. Rama (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  Thus, it's applied art, which is eligible under French copyright law. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  No, it is industrial design. It is not different from cars, which are accepted. If the chair was applied art, it would entail that cars would be applied art as well, and we would have to suppress all images of French-designed cars and cars photographed in France.

  Incidentally, I think that calling Paulin's work "applied art" is a fundamental misinterpretation: Paulin is one of the foremost representatives of a school of though that aimed at mass-producing high-quality goods for the masses. This is the opposite of applied art, where a unique work of art blends into a utilitarian object. Rama (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment Thèse chairs are artistic ones. Pierre Paulin is an artist who sell expensive his creations. A car is an utilitarian object (except when tuning). --Civa (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Err... from where are you taking this? do you have examples of law or jurisprudence on thresholds of tuning for a car to become a work of art? We are not discussing what we feel would be right, we are discussing what is legal. Rama (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Applied art. In other EU-countries courts ruled that some chairs do have a copyright. (EU-copyright law is harmonised to a certain level). com:TOO lists a French example of a nail clipper which has a copyright. To bad the link doesn't work but based on this we cannot just assume that applied art designed by a well know designer wouldn't meet the treshold of originality in France. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC) PS. For a French examples see here and here. Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)