Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aalto vase.jpg
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.
Copyvio. As per here Freedom of Panorama in Finland does not apply to single objects and in any case not for commercial use, which conflicts with Common's requirements. Aalto died in 1976. --User:G.dallorto 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer and I'm not the author either. Contact one of those; I have nothing to do with this pic...
- Nevertheless, I do not like the idea that somebody couldn't make a photo about his vase at his home.... -- CsTom 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it is only that, you can't even publish a photo of your HOME, were it designed by Aalto... greed sucks, but laws are made by greedy people. And the weird thing is that we supposedly elected them... --User:G.dallorto 10:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Er, isn't this a utilitarian object? I don't think you can copyright a vase.... Carl Lindberg 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you may not copyright the vase as a concept, as far as I know. You may trademark the shape of "Carl Lindberg's vase", though. Or Alvar Aalto's one, as far as I know. --User:G.dallorto 00:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- You could conceivably trademark it yes, but that is different than copyright (and freedom of panorama is specific to copyright). It would also not preclude uploading a photograph. The question here is copyright, and in general we allow photographs of utilitarian objects (see Commons:Image casebook#Utility objects). Carl Lindberg 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I read the part you refer to. I agree on the fact that a "plain" vase may be photographed. Vases are a 30,000 years old concept. What I am saying is that this particular vase is not a "plain" vase, this is a sculpture, which is usable as a vase (this is the concept of "design" objects: work of art to be used as utilitarian objects). It is signed by a famous artist, so much so that it is in fact uploaded here as an example of his work. Are there not any precedent cases on the issue, to refer to? It's unlikely this problems is surfacing for the first time now. --User:G.dallorto 12:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- If this was taken in the U.S., there is definitely no problem -- utilitarian objects are not subject to copyright. From [1]:
- A "useful article" is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing, furniture, machinery, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. An article that is normally part of a useful article may itself be a useful article, for example, an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle.
- Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or flatware itself could not.
- It goes on to say that a design patent must be obtained to protect against other manufacturers using the design. Other countries may have different dividing lines, but this test is still often used here. This photo came from en-wiki supposedly, so it may well be a U.S. photo. Carl Lindberg 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete To me that looks like what is called "art glass", i.e. as much glass sculpture than utilitarian object. So the picture may well be a copyvio. --Simonxag 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete A creative copyright attaches to utilitarian items that have a substantial creative component. Durova 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not in the United States; the creative part has to be separable from the utilitarian aspect (i.e. a graphic design on the surface). If this is a U.S. photo of a product sold there, there is definitely no problem. Other countries may be different, but is there any indication that such copyright would actually carry through to photos of the object, as opposed to just preventing competing vase makers from using the same design? Is there any case law which indicates it might? That would seem odd for a design copyright; which I think is very different than regular artistic copyright applied with pure sculpture. Carl Lindberg 16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. giggy (:O) 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
