Commons:Deletion requests/Rosas
|
Rosas
[edit]- File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.jpg
- File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png
- File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.png
This is not the actual portrait made by Gaetano Descalzi (which is currently uploaded at File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg) but a derivative version of it. It was included in the front page of the 2009 book "Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial", and as you can see both versions differ. The most clear difference are those weird blue eyes. The original is public domain, but the derivative is a new work, subject to its own copyright.
To clarify this, see here. It is the page 208 of a book published by the National Historical Museum of Argentina, edited in 1998, ISBN 950-9517-88-7. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep This shows how little you actually know about Rosas: he was blond-haired and had blue eyes. And here is the scan to the cover and inside page from the book I used. Take a look inside the red circle: "Imagen de tapa: Juan Manuel de Rosas. Gaetano Descalzi (pintura). Museo de Arte Hispanoamericano Isaac Fernández Blanco." (Cover picture: Juan Manuel de Rosas. Gaetano Descalzi (painting). Isaac Fernández Blanco Hispanic-American Art Museum). --Lecen (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's no need for personal attacks. Have in mind that we are not discussing about Rosas the historical man, but about portraits of Rosas, which are not photos but the way certain artists depict him. Yes, I know what does the book claims, I have it. It is the same book that opens with a long quotation, which is not written verbatim, and does not use footnotes or documents. Who should I trust for the info about a portrait? A divulgator whose mistakes I can realize myself, or a book written by an actual museum? By the way, I have visited the museum Isaac Fernández Blanco sometime, and never saw this "portrait" anywhere, but I may check it again one of those days to clarify this if you want. Cambalachero (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.... yeah, yeah... go there... and try to learn something about Argentine history. --Lecen (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- And here you can learn more about the museum. Holy shit! What is that picture down at the bottom of the page? Is Calletano Descalzi's painting! Please, someone point it to Cambalachero! --Lecen (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting: the red around the oval follows the same pattern than in the book cover. I will mantain my distrust unless I see the portrait myself. By the way, your ardor about having this book is completely out of place. You have made disdainful comments about it yourself in the past Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep A slavish copy of a public domain work is itself public domain. The fact that the eyes are bluer is so minor as to be irrelevant. – JBarta (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the eyes are that blue. There was no change to the painting. --Lecen (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, in all fairness, this appears to be the original. The file nominated for deletion appears to be a copy. Judging by a Google image search, there seem to be quite a few copies of that original. As far as the freakishly blue eyes, the version nominated for deletion is the only one. The page you mention shows the version nominated for deletion as the original. Is it really the original? Or did the authors of that web site use an image of a copy? I'd bet my last doughnut they used an image of a copy. Either way, I don't think the copy is sufficiently original as to warrant a separate copyright. It's nothing more than a copy. So the point is, regardless of whether the image nominated for deletion is the original or a copy, it remains in the public domain. – JBarta (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seeing the picture to the right? That's the book from where I scanned the painting. Take a look at it. It says who painted the painting and where is presently located. Could you tell me why the picture you mentioned, which has no source except for the name of the Museo histórico nacional, is the original? Take a look athe file history: it has several different pictures uploaded. Also: Juan Manuel de Rosas had blue eyes. --Lecen (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- You make good points and I don't have a compelling answer. My opinion about which is the original and which is the copy is merely an opinion based on the appearance of the portraits. I stand by my opinion, but can offer nothing concrete that supports one being the original over the other. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that you believe the file nominated for deletion is the one actually done by Descalzi and all the others are copies of it? – JBarta (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that. It is Cambalachero that went here screaming that everything else was a copy of one portrait. Perhaps Descalzi made several portraits. I don't know. I'm not a Descalzi expert. What I do know is that I got my painting from a legitimate source while the File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg is a Frankenstein. It has no source and it isn't known what is the true picture since several differents ones were uploaded over the same file. Take a look at this link, for example. It is about the Museo de Arte Hispanoamericano Isaac Fernández Blanco. Now go the very bottom of the page. What do you see? The painting I uploaded and the name of the artist who painted. Guess who? --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete From my opinion, this is a slight modification to the original picture by Descalzi, but a modification after all. As an intervection on a piece of art, it should have its own copyright. Those so brilliant eyes called my attention at first sight and I guess it will be the same for other persons that take a look to the picture. Fma12 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that. It is Cambalachero that went here screaming that everything else was a copy of one portrait. Perhaps Descalzi made several portraits. I don't know. I'm not a Descalzi expert. What I do know is that I got my painting from a legitimate source while the File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg is a Frankenstein. It has no source and it isn't known what is the true picture since several differents ones were uploaded over the same file. Take a look at this link, for example. It is about the Museo de Arte Hispanoamericano Isaac Fernández Blanco. Now go the very bottom of the page. What do you see? The painting I uploaded and the name of the artist who painted. Guess who? --Lecen (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- You make good points and I don't have a compelling answer. My opinion about which is the original and which is the copy is merely an opinion based on the appearance of the portraits. I stand by my opinion, but can offer nothing concrete that supports one being the original over the other. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that you believe the file nominated for deletion is the one actually done by Descalzi and all the others are copies of it? – JBarta (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seeing the picture to the right? That's the book from where I scanned the painting. Take a look at it. It says who painted the painting and where is presently located. Could you tell me why the picture you mentioned, which has no source except for the name of the Museo histórico nacional, is the original? Take a look athe file history: it has several different pictures uploaded. Also: Juan Manuel de Rosas had blue eyes. --Lecen (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, in all fairness, this appears to be the original. The file nominated for deletion appears to be a copy. Judging by a Google image search, there seem to be quite a few copies of that original. As far as the freakishly blue eyes, the version nominated for deletion is the only one. The page you mention shows the version nominated for deletion as the original. Is it really the original? Or did the authors of that web site use an image of a copy? I'd bet my last doughnut they used an image of a copy. Either way, I don't think the copy is sufficiently original as to warrant a separate copyright. It's nothing more than a copy. So the point is, regardless of whether the image nominated for deletion is the original or a copy, it remains in the public domain. – JBarta (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png and File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.png as these are obviously derived from the image used in the book with a date. Prior to photography, and for some time afterward, there would have been many copies made of paintings of leaders (one for every public office and embassy), so it is not at all unusual to have differing versions, and one often cannot be certain which was the original paradigm. While File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg is also likely legitimately in the public domain, its color is definitely off (through yellowed varnish, bad lighting, etc.) and as Lecen pointed out, there is no dating. Astynax (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly the almost 175-year old original painting itself is PD, and the so called "derivative work" is little more than a slavish reproduction without significant (if any) discernible or copyrightable "new original" material. I have removed the offending "red background" from the book's cover design, and as neither the publisher nor the author seems to claim any copyright protection for the painting itself (nor for that matter would they seem to have any defensible grounds to do so) it seems to be PD under every and all applicable legal criteria. Centpacrr (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment, leaning towards Keep Let's try to clear this up a bit: File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg on the one hand and the three variants of File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.jpg on the other hand are cleary different portraits, although showing the person in the same attire. File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg is said to be in the "Museo histórico nacional", whereas the "blue-eyed" one is located in the "Museo de Arte Hispanoamericano Isaac Fernández Blanco" according to the book it was taken from. Both are attributed to the painter Gaetano Descalzi, and with the information we have here, it's impossible to say which one is a "derivative" of the other. In any case, File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.jpg etc. doesn't look like a recent derivative specifically created for the book to me, but, as said above - just a different contemporary painting of around 1840. It is entirely possible that Descalzi painted several portraits of Juan Manuel de Rosas. I'm not enough of an art adept to say whether these two paintings might be created by the same artist - the style looks quite a bit different to me. *But* anyway the book where it was used says it's a Descalzi portrait, and IMHO this should be enough evidence to keep the files as PD-old. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus. INeverCry 18:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)