Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dark Star Park.jpg

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.

File:Dark Star Park.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the United States. This sculpture is still under copyright. Found5dollar (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Postdlf, sorry for the delayed response, but these are not just spheres. The spheres are pierced by holes and are otherwise worked to not be true spheres. The objects and their alignment is a copyrighted artwork and therefore images of it are not free to use. --Found5dollar (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not it's "artwork" is a separate question from whether it's copyrightable (many minimalist sculptures and monochromatic paintings would definitely not be, for example). But even if we assume that the sculptural installation is copyrightable as sculptures, all that matters here is what this photograph has actually copied. And the photograph just shows spheres, it did not copy anything copyrightable. The sphere that has a circular hole visibly cut out of it is still a simple geometric shape. Postdlf (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postdlf,this picture is not just showing spheres. The artwork includes the reflecting pool, the tunnel, the concreter curvilinear lines, and the shapes of the grass mounds. Virtually the entire image is the artwork. Either way, this is a literally copyrighted artwork and an image of a copyrighted work and images of it must be licensed. "Art © Holt/Smithson Foundation, licensed by VAGA at ARS, New York"[1]--Found5dollar (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen a claim that landscaping was copyrightable, and that's essentially what you're claiming here. I also think you're still not appreciating that copyright eligibility under the law is a separate question from cultural status or artistic merit. But we've each had our say here. Postdlf (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel: Your thoughts? Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Perhaps @JWilz12345: can answer this? --A1Cafel (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am included to Delete but would like another opinion Gbawden (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure if American TOO applies to sculptures, but I'm leaning towards  Weak delete as per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Claes Oldenburg once sent a take down notice before (2012), and all images of his works in the United States (including those that are simple or representing everyday objects) were deleted. On top of that, my observation is that U.S. courts tend to be erratic, but usually in favor of the side of the artists. Like the case of Mr. Robert Davidson (who claims copyright over the Vegas replica of Lady Liberty) versus USPS. USPS eventually lost and had to pay US$3.5 million compensation to Davidson. Anyway, pinging @Clindberg, Jameslwoodward, and Jeff G.: for better inputs regarding this ball-shaped sculpture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I've seen registered US copyrights on very simple sculptural works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per James, JWilz12345, pcp, and COM:FOP US.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dark_Star_Park.jpg&oldid=533745587"