Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tsuguharu Fujita
Files in Category:Tsuguharu Fujita
[edit]The artwork of [[::w:Tsuguharu Foujita]] (1886 – 1968) is still copyrighted. undelete in 2039
Nightingale (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- This digitized image comes from the website of StamfordHistory.org. This specific painting is the property of the US government, belonging to the U.S. Air Force Art & Museum Branch (their accession # 277.53), 1978. This specific photograph of the painting is from the "Naval Historical Center"; but now the name should be cited as "Naval History and Heritage Command".
This image is now tagged {{PD-US}} --Tenmei (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
DisagreeWhoever of US government possess the digitized image, it does nothing with the author's copyright. The author of the object of this digitized image is Fujita and thus still copyrighted. --Nightingale (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Nightingale -- I think I understand your point. In order to be very clear, can we agree about two on-point facts: (a) The painting was taken by the US government in the war which ended in 1945; and (b) this specific painting and the digitized image of it are explicitly identified as the property of the US government? If I understand you correctly, your point-of-view is that these facts are not relevant in our Wikipedia decision-making process?
Please clarify how this issue is be parsed. I do not know how to proceed any further. I look forward to learning how this interesting question is resolved. ----Tenmei (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- (a)This particular painting "十二月八日の真珠湾(1942)" was requisitioned by Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers(SCAP) in 1946 and returned to Japan in 1970. This painting is now stored in The National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo. Some of the war arts paintings requisitioned by SCAP were already returned to Japan from the US government as indefinite loan File:WarArtExhibition.pdf in 1970. This list includes this Fujita's painting. In fact one can see the photo of this painting with much better resolution than this file at a personal web site such as [1].
- (b)The fact that this particular image was digitized at a certain time of the past implies that the US government kept either the painting itself or its photograph at the time of digitizing process. Since the painting was returned to Japan in 1970 I reasonably assume that the US government digitized the image from photo of the original painting. Although you in the file description write that this painting is the US government property, I am not convinced until I learn more about the ownership issue of this particular painting. In general the requisitioned property by SCAP is not the US government property. For example, the landowner in Japan whose land was requisitioned after WWII and is still used by the US government is recieving the rent for his/her land. To summarise, the original painting cannot be the US government property unless further information is provided.
- Tenmei said ;<quote>If I understand you correctly, your point-of-view is that these facts are not relevant in our Wikipedia decision-making process?
Please clarify how this issue is be parsed.<endofquote>
- I think so. Commons discussion and decision in DR has been largely made from the viewpoint of copyright not other rights which may be attached to the object such as trademark, ownership and personality rights. IMO, we, in DR discussion in this case, should at first hand focus on copyright issue of this particular painting.
- For your info, a more detailed account on how such war paintings were requisitioned by SCAP and returned to Japan is found in Reita Hirase's chapter in book "Art in Wartime Japan 1937-1945" pp. 163-169 ISBN 978-4-336-04954-4, though in Japapese. --Nightingale (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Nightingale -- I think I understand your point. In order to be very clear, can we agree about two on-point facts: (a) The painting was taken by the US government in the war which ended in 1945; and (b) this specific painting and the digitized image of it are explicitly identified as the property of the US government? If I understand you correctly, your point-of-view is that these facts are not relevant in our Wikipedia decision-making process?
Comment Kimiyo Foujita (藤田君代), who was a wife & heir of Tsuguharu, won her case at the Tokyo High Court on 17 October 1985 - 判例 16． 藤田嗣治絵画複製事件 (東京高判昭和 60 年 10月 17 日判時 1176 号 33 頁). Both Kimiyo and Tsuguharu were granted French citizenship in 1955 (they don't have Japanese citizenship). Note: Kimiyo died on 2 April 2009. Takabeg (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Takabeg -- International intellectual property law is not a simple subject. A review of the opinion at Case 16. "Tsuguharu Fujita" may not be on-point. How does it help us understand what to do about the exceptional case which this specific artwork presents?
My guess is that the unique provenance of this artwork puts it in a rare category which is outside the scope of this opinion I do not know how to proceed any further. We'll see how this process unfolds.
Please consider en:File talk:Signing ceremony for the Axis Powers Tripartite Pact;.jpg. There are similar issues. --Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Takabeg -- International intellectual property law is not a simple subject. A review of the opinion at Case 16. "Tsuguharu Fujita" may not be on-point. How does it help us understand what to do about the exceptional case which this specific artwork presents?
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 23:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)