Commons:Deletion requests/Goddess of Democracy images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Goddess of Democracy images|year=2024|month=November|day=03}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Goddess of Democracy images|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Goddess of Democracy images}} at the end of today's log.
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.

Goddess of Democracy images

[edit]

These are derivative works of copyrighted replica sculptures of the "Goddess of Democracy" statue in the United States, where sculptures are not covered under Freedom of Panorama. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph, is not a derivative work of a statue by Thomas Marsh. The original statue was created by the protesting students in Tianamen Square. Thomas Marsh created a bronze replica of that statue which is in San Francisco. The statue in Washington is a replica of that replica and does not qualify as an independent work of art subject to copyright. 中文: 共产主义受难者纪念碑的一个角度Afil (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly not a work that is copyrightable by Thomas Marsh - since he just copied it from the students in Tianamen Square. He is not unique in this - see Goddess_of_Democracy#Replicas which has about 9 replicas listed, including an award statuette given by the National Endowment for Democracy. The only real question is whether it's copyrighted by the students in Tianamen Square. In any practical sense, it cannot be. Nobody really knows who all the authors were and the Government of China would not let them copyright it if they were known. More importantly, this was meant as a monument to liberty, democracy and freedom of speech. The Communist government destroyed the statue in order to destroy that message. Now you want Wikipedia to destroy that message as well? Use some common sense please. Smallbones (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've listed this deletion request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. One more question. What does it mean in the nomination "copyrighted replica sculptures?" Does this phrase have any basis in copyright law anywhere? Smallbones (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a video still of the destruction of the Goddess of Democracy. It was deleted because I couldn't name the creator, one of the demonstrators, despite it being a historical significant image. My upload of the iconic Fall of Saigon helicopter rescue image maintained because the creator is known (Hubert van Es) as is the creator of the image of Tank Man. So it seems that if you scare people enough into keeping their involvement in creative work a secret you can effectively censor it under the copyright laws which assume that works need to have a named creator. SpeakFree (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only some editors on Wikipedia are doing the censoring, and I think they should remember that "Wikipedia is not censored" Nobody has raised the copyright question anywhere else but here, as far as I can tell. Among those who have placed replicas elsewhere are several well-known universities, a non-profit group, and an agency of the US Government. Only on Wikipedia would an argument about this being copyrighted not be considered laughable. And why are we doing this? Presumably to protect the copyright of the unknown protestors in Tianamen Square! The Chinese Government censors them (among other things), and then we censor them in order to protect their rights! Smallbones (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to the article the Goddess of Democracy was based on the Worker and Kolkhoz Woman statue by Vera Mukhina (who died 57 years ago). SpeakFree (talk) So surely her heirs should have more of a say than "replicator" Thomas Marsh. SpeakFree (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the chain of evidence as to who copied whom is indeed broken. As such, attribution of the copyright of the original statue to Thomas Marsh cannot be demonstrated. Anyway, the nom has missed these, and maybe these ones too! ;-) --Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hong Kong has freedom of panorama for sculptures, and therefore those images are permissible, while, since the US does not have FOP for sculptures, it's a different story. Regarding the Statue of Liberty, that sculpture is pre-1923, so copyright restrictions don't apply. And don't be a smart-aleck.  :-) SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still please explain how the first copier of a statue can get rights over its depiction. If that were true the first copier of a picture, cd, movie, whatever should also have rights. SpeakFree (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thomas Marsh cannot have the copyright. Comments by Smallbones, SpeakFree and Ohconfucius are very incisive. Victor falk (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Could somebody close this? - It's clear that the nominator's concept of "copyrighted replicas" has no basis in copyright law or Wikipedia policies. Smallbones (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. - Jcb (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]