Commons:Deletion requests/File:Última Cena - Da Vinci 5.jpg
We are contacting you from Franco Cosimo Panini Editore/Haltadefinizione in Italy. We would like to nominate for deletion the image on the following Wikimedia Commons page:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%9Altima_Cena_-_Da_Vinci_5.jpg
The original image belongs to our own archives and two are the main reasons for which we would like the image not to be available anymore on Wikimedia Commons or on any other Wiki-related page:
1) The image source, according to the summary of the characteristics of the file on the page itself, is “High resolution scan by http://www.haltadefinizione.com/ in collaboration with the Italian ministry of culture”. We did take this photograph on May, 7, 2007 (https://web.archive.org/web/20080303081854/http:/www.haltadefinizione.com:80/en/cenacolo/index.asp) but it has never been released as it is published on the Wikimedia Commons page. The only version we released included our watermark (H9 at that time): actually the image was first published on Wikimedia Commons page by the user Platonides on Nov., 6, 2007 and it did include our watermark (as you can see here, opening the thumbnail connected to this very user in the File History section https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/4b/20101118193046%21%C3%9Altima_Cena_-_Da_Vinci_5.jpg). Later, on Nov., 18, 2010, the user Quibik removed the watermark pattern, according to the File History section. Quibik was not allowed to remove our watermark – nor even he asked for permission to remove it. Our original image was therefore manipulated without our consent and in order to erase a fundamental element it had to have to be published online, according to our agreement with the Italian Ministry of Culture.
2) The original image, moreover, is not a common photograph. As you can see here once again https://web.archive.org/web/20080303081854/http:/www.haltadefinizione.com:80/en/cenacolo/index.asp, it was taken using a peculiar technique granting gigapixel quality to the final image. The overall image of the masterpiece by Leonardo is an intellectual piece of work itself, realized applying exclusive shooting and processing techniques, technologies and instruments. It is not a mere and simple shot of the Last Supper: 1677 shots had to be taken and then had to be merged through an ad hoc software to get the final high-resolution image. Such a result cannot be compared in any way to a simple two-dimensional shot of a painting. These statements can be further demonstrated, if necessary, and we can present all papers connected to our collaboration and agreements with the Italian Ministry of Culture concerning this shooting and the use of the gigapixel image we realized.
Therefore, as we are the exclusive owner of any and all exploitation rights on the above photographic works, we invite you:
I) To remove immediately such reproductions which are infringing our exclusive properties;
II) To confirm us such removal;
III) To prevent in the future any possible uploading on your systems of the same unauthorized picture. 217.58.2.98 08:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment If the original photograph was taken in 2007 (that is, after 1999), then I do believe it violates copyright to have it hosted here, per this. Other more knowledgeable editors should definitely chime in, though.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I have no input or position on the deletion itself; but there are many suitable substitutes in Category:Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci. Is there any way that a bot could either point these out in the the many affected articles' talk pages; or edit the articles themselves to use an alternative? Simple deletion would be rather disruptive. TJRC (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I thank Franco Cosimo Panini Editore for notifying me of this issue of this file uploaded a long time ago.
First of all, regarding point (II), I expect that, since they didn't leave other contact details, they will be monitoring this page (where the decision will be stated), and consider messages here communication enough, whatever the outcome.
Second, there are several issues brought up here:
- Originality of the gigapixel image. If the image is a faithful reproduction of Leonardo's work, it doesn't generate new copyright under many jurisdictions and, most importantly, US law, per Bridgeman vs Corel. Quoting the resolution, "That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original". The original image copyright obviously expired centuries ago. These images are explicitely allowed into Wikimedia Commons, regardless of source country, see Commons:PD-Art.
- However, Gen. Quon raises a good point that under Italian law, this probably qualifies for "Reproduction photography" copyright and, as such, would be protected until 1 Jan 2028 (or is it 7 May 2027?). The file should at least contain a warning about this so potential reusers are aware of this.
- Watermark removal; I think that there is value in having the original image, even if watermarked, and that the watermark-removed version should have been uploaded under a new name. Note that while we encourage that there are no (visible) watermarks on the images themselves (Template:Watermark, Commons:Watermarks), we properly keep the attribution on the file description page.
- I didn't find on their page the agreement with the Italian Ministry of Culture about the watermark that it had to have to be published online. If keeping the watermark solves the issues, we could consider reverting to the watermarked version.
I see mainly three ways to resolve this:
- (A) Keep the image as-is, in accordance with Wikimedia Commons policy. Adding disclaimer that it will be copyrighted under some jurisdictions, linking to FCPE/HD licensing page.
- (B) Perform a deletion of the image, as a courtesy to Franco Cosimo Panini Editore, which may involve:
- (B1) Deleting just the last version and keeping the watermarked one.
- (B2) Deleting everything and change the articles that use the haltadefinizione image to other ones.
- (image would be restored on 2028)
As an involved party, I explicitly abstain on the decision of the future of this picture.
Platonides (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep No originality on this photo, per statements of someone claiming to be from Franco Cosimo Panini Editore/Haltadefinizione, so as the copyrights of the Last Supper expired centuries ago (even before the concept of copyright existed). Even with high technical proficiency and skill, the fact is that this is merely an faithfull reproduction of the Last Supper, without any creative imput. Per Bridgeman vs Corel and Commons:PD-Art say exactly the same.
- You, 217.58.2.98, claim the reproduction "is not a common photograph (...), it was taken using a peculiar technique granting gigapixel quality to the final image." butt he fact that is that an image having 1MP or 100MP or even 1000MP is irrelevant to copyright reasons, as there is no creative imput in resolution. Also you claim that "the overall image of the masterpiece by Leonardo is an intellectual piece of work itself, realized applying exclusive shooting and processing techniques, technologies and instruments. It is not a mere and simple shot of the Last Supper: 1677 shots had to be taken and then had to be merged through an ad hoc software to get the final high-resolution image. . The fact that it took 1677 images and stitching software this image is irrelevant to create. What you created is not "such a result cannot be compared in any way to a simple two-dimensional shot of a painting. What you created is exactly an faithfull two dimensional reproduction of the Last Supper, that no mega-hiper-super resolution and software stitching can make this more than an reproduction of the Last Supper and not an "intellectual piece of work itself". Or were not your intentions to make a faithfull representation of the Last Supper aka a reproduction? Tm (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: - Commons follows Bridgeman and therefore there is no reason to delete this. Furthermore, we almost never delete images at the request of anonymous editors unless there is a very good reason to do so. This request should have been made at OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
