Commons:Deletion requests/UN Art Collection

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

UN Art Collection

[edit]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the USA. These are all recent works and are, therefore, violations of the copyright of the artists who created the works.

--     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought United Nations headquarters is considered international territory? Even if, oppose the deletion of the bell image, that is a traditional Japanese structure and not a modern piece of art. Gryffindor (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the extraterritoriality issue, see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Japanese_embassy_in_Iceland.JPG. I have stricken the Japanese bell from the list -- unless someone objects?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Ever!!! ~ The United Nations Headquarters is international territory and has extraterritoriality status. The Art Collection of the UN is contained and exhibited within the confines of the UN Headquarters. This collective group of artworks donated as gifts to the UN (and consequently to all the peoples of the world) is a representation of love, respect and peace among the people, making it a world heritage. Keep all of them! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where are the panoramas in File:20080429 155616 IMG 1747 mozaika.jpg and File:Nicolaus Copernicus bust at UN New York.JPG??? –pjoef (talk • contribs)
 Delete (except for the bell). Extraterritoriality is a legal fiction that isn't used any more in international public law. The United Nations enjoy immunity and special privileges according to the headquarters agreement of 26 June 1947, but they hold no sovereignty over the UN compound in New York. Per article III section 7b, ‘except as otherwise provided in this agreement or in the General Convention, the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district.’ Unless proven otherwise, American copyright law must be enforced here. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, User:Pjoef, we have not been clear. As a general rule a painter, sculptor, architect, or other artist owns the rights to reproduce his or her work, so that you cannot sell photographs of a painting or other work during the life of the copyright. In some countries, most notably Germany, the copyright law explicitly allows the sale of photographs of works of art that are permanently installed in public places under a special rule knows as "Panoramafreiheit", or, roughly, "Freedom of Panorama" ("FOP"). In countries without FOP, the general rule applies. There is FOP for buildings, but not other works of art, in the United States, so both sculpture and paintings that are in the USA may not be photographed for Commons until their copyright has expired.
And thank you to Jastrow for the cite from the UN agreement.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Jastrow. Well done Jim for spotting and reporting a tricky issue. Rama (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I've asked on en: for the local transfer of those pictures under Fair Use, if possible. I'll delete the pictures in a few days. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep If US law is applicable, then these statues were published without notice, so {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the dates, Pieter -- you may be right on some, but at least two of them post-date that requirement.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What proof do you have that those statues were published without notice? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mikolaj Kopernik bust is from 1970, sculptor Alfons Karny, a gift from the Polish people; no copyright notice visible, and it would also be quite absurd. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep pending Pieter's tag; and the dates first published in the USA...Modernist 13:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 Delete per Jastrow. Not happy about it, but if that's the law then we have to do it. Gryffindor (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment File:20080429 155616 IMG 1747 mozaika.jpg has a CC license from http://nemcok.sk/copyright_en.htm and the Knotted Gun is just another copy - it can be freely photographed, see Category:Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment OK, here's where I am:

Don't forget these:

Gryffindor (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:Image-UN Swords into Plowshares Statue.JPG - it is from 1960 or so. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed on all except the last -- it has a no-notice tag on it, and given that it was installed during the period that notice was required, that is probably correct.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to close this because I'm the nominator, but I am going to make it easy for one of my colleagues, as I think we have full agreement now. Please delete:

Please keep:

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Gryffindor (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete As stated above, Norman Rockwell, creator of the mosaic, died in 1978, and none of his works are on commons. Alfons Karny, creator of the Nicolaus Copernicus bust, died only 21 years ago in 1989, and a self portrait of his [1] was deleted from Polish Wikipedia. Besides, the bust is labeled with "Mikolaj Kopernik", a name the Poles invented centuries after the death of the astronomer who is known by his Latin scholar name Nicolaus Copernicus, and documented by his real (German) name Niklas Koppernigk. The main purpose of this bust is to stake a Polish claim on the astronomer even at UN HQ. Currently, no Wikipedia uses the photo of the POV-labelled bust of the astronomer. Also, as pointed out above, Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States hardly applies if not the building is pictured as such, but the photo is cropped, leaving only a copyrighted detail. --Matthead (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm not sure what Matthead wants here. The Rockwell is already on the list for deletion. The Copernicus bust is PD-no-notice, so all the rest of the details about it are irrelevant. And, yes, it is probably still in copyright in Poland as no-notice did not apply there; that is irrelevant to this discussion because this is a USA source photo. As for Freedom of Panorama applying, since there is no Freedom of Panorama in the USA for sculpture, there is nothing to apply, whether or not the building is in the photograph. The bust would be PD-no-notice wherever it were in the USA.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Yeah I'm a little irritated by Matthead's comment as well, not sure how this is pertaining to our discussion. Keep the head if it's fine. Gryffindor (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately these are not ok either I believe:

Gryffindor (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United States for sculptures. Kameraad Pjotr 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/UN_Art_Collection&oldid=539090315"