Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duhameldemonceau.jpg
Dispute on nature of the painting and copyright status Rama (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
On the edits Revision of File:Duhameldemonceau.jpg, 83.61.231.21 raises an interesting point that This is not an original painting by François-Hubert Drouais, but a 1966 copy made by the Russian-French painter Vladimir Zveguintsov (1913–2006). His works are still copyrighted until 70 years after his death had been passed. This work would be out of copyright in 2077. and requests speedy deletion.
I am disputing this, and thus changing the speedy deletion into a standard Deletion requests (as is normal is such circumstances). Assuming that 83.61.231.21 is correct about Zveguintsov (and I see no reason no doubt that), 83.61.231.21 themselves states that this painting is a copy. As a copy it does not constitute original work, and thus does not yield a copyright. The assertion "His works are still copyrighted until 70 years after his death had been passed. This work would be out of copyright in 2077." (technically that would be 71 year: works are promoted into the Public Domain at the start of the civil year after 70 years have passed. But no matter.) is thus debatable. Rama (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep if this is the original, it has been in public domain for decades; if this is a copy, its very nature as a copy precludes it being an original work, and it does not yield a copyright. The argument that work rather than originality should determine copyright status is called Sweat of the brow, and is rejected in the European Union as well as in the USA. See also Threshold of originality. Rama (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep according with @Rama's reasoning. 83.61.231.21 18:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination -- Contrary to the comments above, copy paintings have their own copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
