Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Burns at Ardeer.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

This deletion debate 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.

File:Robert Burns at Ardeer.JPG[edit]

Blatant copyvio No FOP for murals in the UK see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mural - geograph.org.uk - 297632.jpg for deletion discussion on another photo of this same artwork. In use on English Wikipedia, if this meets fair use criteria, please transfer there. Simonxag (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Following section copied from User talk:Simonxag

Hello. I am not sure if I am more bemused than amused that you have caused this to be deleted. However I would like to know who the artist was if it is actually a copy of an existing artwork. Do you know? Thanks. RSLlGriffith (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea. People seem to think it's a copy of an old artwork, but it is a modern painting and that's where the copyright problems come from. There is no permission and no freedom of panorama. --Simonxag (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have checked Google Images and failed to find this image of Robert Burns. I remain confused. Are you saying that my photograph of someone's possibly unique work is flagrant copyright? Otherwise you must first know that this artwork is a copy of an existing one - which 'you' don't it seems. I do know who painted it - about ten young people. I could ask Gavin - the leader - where it came from. The young people are also puzzled and are asking for an explanation.RSLlGriffith (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

End of Copied section
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't believe that the mural is a copy of an existing, still-in-copyright, artwork. That would be a further problem: please ask Gavin about it. The copyright that is the problem here is the copyright on the mural: that copyright is owned by Gavin and his friends. What you seem to have picked up on is a red herring from the deletion discussion for another photo of this mural, the false supposition that if this mural is a copy of an old, public domain, image, then it doesn't qualify for copyright protection; it does!
The reason that this photo seemed a blatant copyright violation (like most photos of murals in the UK) was that there was no indication of permission from the copyright holders (the mural painters). Ask Gavin if he (and his friends!) are willing for you to publish this photo under a free license. Then get Gavin to email OTRS at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org saying that they are OK with the picture and license.
You also ought to name the mural painters in the description, either individually or with their group identity, see what they say. --Simonxag (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep while we wait for OTRS confirmation --Simonxag (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could explain what OTRS is! Do you not feel that you are going a bit far with your copyright protection? You certainly seem to be joing the ranks of the 'Health and Safety' brigade. The picture has been vandalised - I am told that the glasses were painted on later by persons unknown - do I need their permission as well? I photographed a mural on the beach the other day that was washed away by the tide. Stewart did the artwork - do I need his permission to post this on Wikimedia? You see my point. Yours, more bemused than before, RSLlGriffith (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please read the page Commons:OTRS. Sometimes we go too far with copyright protection, but not here. We need to protect the users of our artworks from being sued. A mural is as much copyrighted as any artwork. In the UK you can photograph a sculpture if its on permanent public display but not a graphic work. That's a violation of copyright. If the community group who painted this also think that's silly then suggest they release it under a free license: I think a free license (like attribution share-alike) would be a great idea for most community art projects. The artwork that was washed away by the tide 'does' need the artists permission. Vandalism does not. The Commons accepts most pictures of graffiti because it's very unlikely a court would enforce copyright for a criminal act.--Simonxag (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You can delete it. It will be repainted, the graffiti removed and then posted again on Wikimedia. We will add a copyright symbol to warn future blatant abusers of copyright. You mention 'people' think it's a copy of an existing artwork. Have I missed a discussion forum somewhere as you seem to be the only person involved? RSLlGriffith (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted: The mural has its own copyright, so to keep it we will need OTRS license from all those who created it. There iis a suggestion in the discussion that they were "young people" -- the permission must come from parents of any who are minors. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Robert_Burns_at_Ardeer.JPG&oldid=85258786"