Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Julia Roberts wax model.JPG

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.

Image:Julia_Roberts_wax_model.JPG

derivative of a copyrighted wax sculpture of Julia Roberts from the wax museum in London -- Yonatan ^talk 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete --Dodo 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep, surprisingly. This is an (almost) exact copy of a living individual, and as such has no originality which could support a claim to copyright. No matter how much effort was put into making the model, it's only if there is originality that copyright can subsist. Besides, it would seem this is on permanent display in the UK in a place to which the public has acess (albeit for a fee), and hence COM:FOP applies. --MichaelMaggs 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete Of course it has the sufficient originality for a work of art. In fact it has as much originality as it can get. In contrast to Image:Malewitsch.jpg, which had only a weak copyright (but is now in the public domain completely due to expired copyright), it enjoys full protection. FOP doesn't apply, since it is not public access that matters, but whether it's placed permanently on public streets and places. --Rtc 13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. It is an exact copy of something (a person) which does not in itself attract copyright, and hence the copy is not legally original. Also, the UK has full FOP for sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public): see Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988. --MichaelMaggs 17:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is an exact copy, why doesn't it talk, think, move? --rtc 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the logic is similar to in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grand Rapids Cavallo 2.jpg - that (supposedly) no creativity is involved, as it is supposed to be an exact copy of something that is not copyrighted. Kjetil r 07:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. But that's cleary a fallacy, since all the expression, pose etc. is pure creativity. Creating a sculpture of a human cannot be compared to copying an existing sculpture. --rtc 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Rtc is, IMHO, quite right as regards the originality of the work; I am inclined to think that, for the reasons he sets out, it is legally artistic and original. Nevertheless, FOP would seem to entail here, principally because, pace Rtc, premises open to the public need not, I think, to be a public place or street (i.e., property owned by the state) or even a broad place of public accommodation, but, rather, may be any place that is publicly accessible; whilst a fee is charged for entry into Madame Toussaud's, a private entity, such fee does not render the museum as inaccessible (under such interpretation, FOP would not be seen as attaching to any sculpture in any non-government owned facility, which is plainly not the understanding of FOP that would seem to prevail in the UK, where works at privately-owned galleries that are open to the public are, I believe, understood as eligible for FOP use). My only concern is that the Roberts model may not be permanently situated at the wax museum, but someone better acquainted with the issue than I might be able to shed some light on that. In any event, unless I'm missing something, the ultimate disposition of this image ought also to control those of the other files comprised by Category:Wax museum of Tussauds. Jahiegel 04:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep absolutely no creativity involved, same logic with U.S. State Highway shields.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Deleted derivative work. Sculptures are surely even more "creative and original" than photos and freedom of panorama does not work inside museum. A.J. 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored: as per [1] {{FoP-UK}} Yann (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)