Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009-0617-statue-Wakefield.jpg
File:2009-0617-statue-Wakefield.jpg edit
1988 modern art sculpture. Unfortunately no Freedom of Panorama in the US. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- This picture, at least on two of the articles it is on, could fall under fair use. Is there any way to transfer it to regular wikipedia and add a fair use tag?--Found5dollar (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom. no FoP provision for sculpture in U.S. could be potentially used under another project with fair use but not on Commons. Warfieldian (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
File:2009-0617-statue-Wakefield.jpg edit
1988 statue in the United States. Per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, this is an unpublished statue. {{PD-US-1978-89}} only applies to published works. Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. "This definition of publication requires more than displaying a work to the public: it requires that individuals gain a possessory interest in a tangible copy of the work as a “transfer of ownership.”" The statue was created by the sculptor and transferred (change of possession) to the City of Wakefield. All I can say is "wow", if this is how you interpret US copyright law I fear that all of your edits may need to be reviewed for mistaken deletions and vindictive nominations (as this one clearly was). Keep --Bobak (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you think that Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US is wrong, then I suggest that you start a discussion at COM:VPC about that, since there are lots of deletion discussions all of the time which are based on that page. I am not convinced that you could say that tangible copies have been sold to the public. One copy was sold to the City of Wakefield, but other people were not offered a copy of the work. I'm not sure if the use of a plural form in s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101 is relevant, but the last sentence in the definition is certainly relevant: "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
- If you visit a monument such as w:The Little Mermaid (statue) or the w:Eiffel Tower, then you will frequently find sellers around the monument selling 3D miniature copies of the monument. I believe that this is what counts as publication under the Copyright Act of 1976 and that you would have to show that sellers have offered copies of this work in a similar fashion if you wish to claim that {{PD-US-1978-89}} applies to the work. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- no, PD-US-1978-89, does not apply to published works alone. rather, one could find a published derivative of this work in the newspaper, or dedication program which would qualify as publication. a higher bar than pre-1978, but not impossible. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I am torn here. On the one hand, this image was deleted by me after due process in 2011. Bobak uploaded it again without an UnDR or other process, which is a serious violation of our rules. The image is, therefore, a candidate for {{Speedy}}. On the other hand, the fact that it was installed in 1988 without registration or copyright notice makes it, according to my reading of the law, PD.
If we accept Stefan's reading of the rule, the statue will never be published and, therefore, have an indefinite copyright. That would be a violation of the Copyright clause in the US Constitution, which calls for "limited times". Our general rule has been that if a work is to remain unpublished, the owner must enforce a rule against making of copies, both 3D and 2D. Having seen the usual souvenirs around the world, I would be very surprised if there were not miniatures and postcards of this work available. At http://www.bobclendenin.com/The%20USA/Peter%20Toth/Peter%20Toth%20Page%204/Peter%20Toth%20page%204.htm, the writer mentions such a postcard. The point though, is not that models or postcards are actually offered, but that nothing is done to prohibit them. Clearly copyright cannot hinge on whether vendors find it commercially reasonable to sell copies of a work. Therefore, I think this is a 
Keep. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
