Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/04

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

[edit] File:Julian_Beever_Mountain_Dew_art_photo_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

No COM:FOP in the USA, otherwise a derivative copyrighted work. MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 Keep Picture is not taken at correct angle for viewing the three-dimensional image. Presence of person in the photograph can make it as much about the person viewing it as it can be about the chalk on the street. Enough surroundings included to not make it a derivative work, especially with presence of person in shot.--David Shankbone (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 Remove I don't see any pages referencing the people in the photograph. Maybe if there was an article about the actual act of painting it...? tinlv7 (Please copy a response here) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 KeepThe picture looks interesting and is a welcome addition to the pages it is incorporated into. A photograph of public street art is certainly legal to share. What next, no pictures of graffiti allowed on wikipedia?69.250.117.1 14:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Mural is drawn with chalk and not permanent. Highly unlikely it's copyrighted or even eligible for that status. No reason to delete. Also, how much longer does this need to stay open? I think 3 1/2 months is more than enough time.--207.144.237.61 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Per 207.144, basically; seems unlikely this is eligible for copyright. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Julian_Beever_Mountain_Dew_art_photo_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

Derivative of copyrighted artwork. Even if the artwork itself is not copyrighted, it is a derivative of the copyrighted Bumblebee character. Definitely not de minimis, mural is the main subject of the image. No FOP in the USA. No reason to assume this is not copyrighted. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep As the IP said in the previous deletion discussion, it's drawn with chalk and not permanent. I don't think you can copyright something that will be washed away either by man/woman or nature. I watched a video on YouTube of him drawing this specific one and not once did I see him reference a likeness on paper. Should this be deleted, so should File:Julian Beever DHL promotion.jpg. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete The fact that a work is "not" permanent does not matter. It is still a fixation of a derivative work, "published" onto a street. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Kept per above. Nothing new since Juliancolton's closure. Yann (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Julian_Beever_Mountain_Dew_art_photo_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

I hate to re-open this again, but I personally still think this is a derivative work, even if this wasn't permament. Even though it does not exist in its present location, it was fixated in a video created by the artist. There is still no FOP for artwork in the United States, and the ineligibility for utilitarian design (like the road) only works if the aesthetic features are separable from its utilitarian features. Here, they are. Also I am still concerned about the third-party rights over the character and brands depicted as well. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete why on earth was this kept? there's no exception in us copyright for utilitarian things or temporary things. a chalk drawing is clearly copyrightable. Mangostar (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep Nothing new since the last 2 closings. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete I think it's up to those wanting to keep this photo to explain why the artwork is not eligible for copyright. We have discussions around Freedom of Panorama about whether a temporary artwork (like an ice sculpture) can be permanently situated. (They can). The FOP bit isn't relevant for the USA, but the fact that we're discussing temporary artworks shows that they are artworks. Maybe there's some special rule in the US that says this is not copyrightable: in which case lets hear about it. Graffiti may not be copyrightable if its creation is a crime, but because this chalk image will wash away the artist can't be accused of damaging anything. --Simonxag (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do we get this whole idea that "graffiti is not copyrightable" idea from? Also, he as a professional, would have probably gotten permission to do this. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Graffiti creation is assumed to be a crime and it is assumed that a court would never enforce payment for a criminal act. You know what they say about assumption, don't you? And IMO the first assumption is made far too readily, particularly in this case. If Shankbone (an experienced Wikimedian) had received permission he could have recorded the fact with the picture. --Simonxag (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First, wheter it's legal depends on various circumstances, eg. on the opinion of the property owner, which we have no information about in this case. And second, any creative work is automatically protected by copyright upon creation, whether it's creation happens to be legal or not relative to other legislation. --Latebird (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - Unambiguously copyrighted original artwork as central element of the photograph. All keep "arguments" so far (in this and the previous nominations) are based on wishful thinking, ignoring the basic legal facts. The last two closings were in blatant violation of Commons policies and copyright legislation. In such a case, "nothing new" means there is still no justification to keep. --Latebird (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Whether or not Julian Beever holds copyright for this particular work is largely academic. The character of Bumblebee is most certainly copyrighted and therefore this image is unsuitable for Commons. I would suspect that uploading the image to other projects under the terms of fair-use would be acceptable. AJCham2097 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. I'm surprised this was ever kept. The graffiti part is irrelevant because this isn't illegal vandalism. FOP is irrelevant since this is the US. De minimis is out of the question because it's obvious meant to show the art. The utilitarian argument is silly because a giant 3D chalk drawing is not anywhere close to "utilitarian" and the canvas it's on isn't important. It's not a part of the road. The law is not concerned with how long something can last given it's chosen format as long as the expression is fixed in some way. Nowhere does the law set a minimum amount time something must last. (There would be lots of issues with this if you think about it. A book or painting or sculpture can be just as temporary if someone or something, e.g. nature, intentionally or unintentionally destroys it. Likewise, "temporary" works can last a lot longer than what we would call "temporary". Put a tarp or something over a chalk drawing to protect it from the elements. Put the ice sculpture in a freezer. Take a photograph. Etc. Nothing lasts forever.) This is "art" by all definitions and there are no reasons why it wouldn't be copyrighted. And no one has cited any law that would exempt this. That fact that it was an advertisement by a well-know artist commissioned by a major corporation suggests this as well. All that aside, as AJCham2097 points out, this is a derivative of the Transformer character Bumblebee (and not in his car form, at that). Rocket000 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)