Commons:Deletion requests/Murals by Gregory Ackers
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.
Murals by Gregory Ackers
[edit]
Since there's no freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 2D works of art like these murals installed after January 1, 1978, per COM:FOP United States, and formalities such as a copyright notice and registration also seemed to stop being required for such works after 1978, the copyright statuses of these two murals themselves needs to be assessed. Unless it can be clearly shown that they are within the public domain, the artist's COM:CONSENT is needed for these files to be considered OK to keep by Commons. The Flickr license for the "Trains mural" photo is fine, but I don't believe it extends to the mural itself (which is described as being completed in 1989 per en:Trains (mural)), which makes the photo a COM:DW in which both the photo and the photographed work need to be clearly OK from a copyright standpoint for Commons to keep. The {{DLC}} licensing for the "Union Station" mural was created by the file's uploader and doesn't appear to have been vetted for accuracy. It also doesn't seem to be applicable because the mural is described as being finished in 1987 per en:Union Station (mural), which means it's not going to be within the public domain simply because of its age (i.e. copyright has expired) or because of a lack of formalities as stated in items 1 and 2 of that license, and there needs to be some way of verifying items 3 and 4 or that the artist has otherwise given their consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- JSTOR and the Columbus Metropolitan Library licensed these images appropriately. I don't care about your personal opinion reading into the legalities; if the CML believes an image to have no copyright, then it does not. Please stop incessantly trying to remove cultural content from encyclopedic spaces; you ought to be blocked. ɱ (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you think I should be blocked for questioning a licensing template that you created yourself or pointing out that there's no freedom of panorama for these mural under US copyright law, then you can start a discussion about me at COM:ANU. However, you'd have a better chance of convincing others to keep these files if you can show how these murals aren't protected by copyright based on US copyright law or how JSTOR or the CML has the authority to act on behalf of the Ackers as his representatives with respect to the copyright status of his works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, you should be blocked for copyright paranoia. Wasting everyone's time. I don't represent JSTOR or the CML, but they are legitimate institutions, not some dumb wiki site where people like you can harass other people over valid content and play "lawyer". ɱ (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- As posted on my user talk page and above, you can start a discussion about me at COM:ANU if you feel I should be blocked for any reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- And license templates are all created and used by individuals. If you don't think I'm qualified to create and edit the many incredibly useful templates that I do, perhaps you should have my 'template editor' rights removed. And perhaps if you think I'm somehow debasing the Columbus Metropolitan Library, perhaps you should contact them. I've been working with them to contribute over 335,000 images to Commons. Doing a world of good that you apparently just want to see washed away. Where do you get off? ɱ (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, you should be blocked for copyright paranoia. Wasting everyone's time. I don't represent JSTOR or the CML, but they are legitimate institutions, not some dumb wiki site where people like you can harass other people over valid content and play "lawyer". ɱ (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you think I should be blocked for questioning a licensing template that you created yourself or pointing out that there's no freedom of panorama for these mural under US copyright law, then you can start a discussion about me at COM:ANU. However, you'd have a better chance of convincing others to keep these files if you can show how these murals aren't protected by copyright based on US copyright law or how JSTOR or the CML has the authority to act on behalf of the Ackers as his representatives with respect to the copyright status of his works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep Union Station mural, there is no copyright registration for Gregory Ackers in the database. It's {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Trains may be trickier, if it were published in March 1989 or after, it would still be in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that could be a possibility and brought up as much at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#PD-US-1978-89 for murals?. Since some were of the opinion that a notice wasn't required from 1978 onward, I added the 1987 file to this discussion. If the consensus is that it does, then the file can relicensed and kept. The 1989 mural is a bit trickier to assess because it's not clear it was completed (i.e. installed) before March 1, 1989, per en:Trains (mural). Given the mural's location, it would seem probable to be completed at some point other that the winter months, but it would be helpful to know the exact date it was completed if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Finally found the answer to your question in this 1989 video. The mural was started in June and completed in the same summer (the dialogue between 5:17 and 5:37 of the video). -- Asclepias (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:PACUSA#After 1978 seems to imply that formalities like a notice or registration weren't necessarily a requirement for copyright protection except in cases where the artwork was "published". The definition of "published" also was changed to mean something other than "publicly displayed" from 1978 onwards. These are two things that probably need to be clarified with respect to these murals. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I do suppose it would need to be clarified if Union Station was indeed published in 1987 according to the 1978 and afterwards definition of publication. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- What form of publication are you looking for, if you imagine up that painting in a public place is not publication? Keeps on moving the goalposts... ɱ (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The goal posts were moved by en:Copyright Act of 1976 which changed (clarified) the meaning for the term "published" with respect to US copyright law as explained here. The US Copyright Office's current definition of "publication" can be found here and Sections 1902 and 1908 state "a public display or public performance does not constitute publication". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's relatively contradictory with itself, where it states "A statutory copyright owned by the artist is created as soon as the work is made." So, the Union Station mural should be copyright 1987. ɱ (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- It also says a notice is required " to keep the work out of the public domain after “publication.”". So if there is no notice or registration or anything for Union Station it is in the Public Domain. ɱ (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- And if we use the Section 1902 definition of publication, it happens on first sale of the work. Which is beneficial for this case, as the work was sold before creation: it was commissioned for the space, and thus transferred from artist to first owner as it was made. ɱ (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to this and this, the commissioning of a work of art doesn't automatically mean there's been a transfer of copyright from the artist to the commissioning party. That could depend upon whether a en:work for hire agreement was in place between the artist and the commissioning body. In addition, formalities seem to have only been required for works "published" between January 1, 1978, and February 28, 1989 (inclusive). A copyright notice wasn't necessarily required but registration within five years of first publication was needed in order for a cclaim of copyright ownership to be considered valid. So, if Ackers retained copyright ownership over the mural, then he would seem to need to have been the one to "publish" it (not the commissioning body). If, for example, he did make tangible copies of the mural available in some form prior to February 28, 1989, then that would seem to constitute publishing and require formal registration. If he never did such a thing or did so sometime on or after March 1, 1989, then his copyright ownership over the work still seem to remain in effect for 70 years en:post mortem auctoris per COM:HIRTLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Your deep dive into the nuances of this just muddles it further... Can't you search for registration or see if you can find a notice? You're giving a lot of hypotheses without a clear explanation. Abzeronow found no copyright registration, and the source you gave plainly states that these works must have registrations. Can we just leave it at that? You're seemingly fighting tooth-and-claw to provide as many obscure legal loopholes as possible to keep these images off the internet; do you have some sort of conflict of interest with relation to Ackers or this area? ɱ (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- The pages I referenced above state formalities are only required in the case of "publication". They also state that "publication" doesn't equate to "displaying the work in public". Abzernow's last comment in this discussion was I do suppose it would need to be clarified if Union Station was indeed published in 1987 according to the 1978 and afterwards definition of publication. That, at least in my opinion, is what still needs to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Your deep dive into the nuances of this just muddles it further... Can't you search for registration or see if you can find a notice? You're giving a lot of hypotheses without a clear explanation. Abzeronow found no copyright registration, and the source you gave plainly states that these works must have registrations. Can we just leave it at that? You're seemingly fighting tooth-and-claw to provide as many obscure legal loopholes as possible to keep these images off the internet; do you have some sort of conflict of interest with relation to Ackers or this area? ɱ (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to this and this, the commissioning of a work of art doesn't automatically mean there's been a transfer of copyright from the artist to the commissioning party. That could depend upon whether a en:work for hire agreement was in place between the artist and the commissioning body. In addition, formalities seem to have only been required for works "published" between January 1, 1978, and February 28, 1989 (inclusive). A copyright notice wasn't necessarily required but registration within five years of first publication was needed in order for a cclaim of copyright ownership to be considered valid. So, if Ackers retained copyright ownership over the mural, then he would seem to need to have been the one to "publish" it (not the commissioning body). If, for example, he did make tangible copies of the mural available in some form prior to February 28, 1989, then that would seem to constitute publishing and require formal registration. If he never did such a thing or did so sometime on or after March 1, 1989, then his copyright ownership over the work still seem to remain in effect for 70 years en:post mortem auctoris per COM:HIRTLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- The goal posts were moved by en:Copyright Act of 1976 which changed (clarified) the meaning for the term "published" with respect to US copyright law as explained here. The US Copyright Office's current definition of "publication" can be found here and Sections 1902 and 1908 state "a public display or public performance does not constitute publication". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:PACUSA#After 1978 seems to imply that formalities like a notice or registration weren't necessarily a requirement for copyright protection except in cases where the artwork was "published". The definition of "published" also was changed to mean something other than "publicly displayed" from 1978 onwards. These are two things that probably need to be clarified with respect to these murals. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete File:Trains mural.jpg, per Asclepias' research. As it dates to June 1989, it is already 3 months after the {{PD-US-1978-89}} cutoff date. No comment for File:Union Station Mural.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
One Kept and somewhat more recent one Deleted per discussion. (Such seems to be the vagaries of US copyright laws.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)