Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mona Lisa.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Image:Mona_Lisa.jpg again

[edit]

Copyright Infringement

OK, let's try this again, as some major arguments were ignored in the previous one. Let's try to proceed in logical steps so that people may oppose the deletion if they wish to by referring to a point in particular:
  • 1 What is the source of the image ?

Louvre museum

  • 2 Is the above server located in France ?

Yes: whois 

role:        ATOS MULTIMEDIA Contact technique
address:     Atos Worldline
address:     zone industrielle A rue la Pointe
address:     59113 Seclin
address:     FR
  • 3 Does the Louvre claim copyright of this image ?
Yes: "© Musée du Louvre/A. Dequier - M. Bard" on the source page
  • 4 Is their claim illegal in France ?
No:
CA Paris, 27 janvier 2006 SARL Éditions Arfise c/ SARL Descharnes

« L'article L. 112-2 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle précise que les œuvres photographiques et celles réalisées à l'aide de technologies analogues à la photographie sont considérées comme œuvre de l’esprit ; qu’il n’est pas fait d’exception pour des photographies qui sont la reproduction de tableaux ; qu’il suffit que les photographies présentent un caractère d’originalité ; que le seul fait que de multiples reproductions de mêmes tableaux existent ne suffit pas à démontrer que les photographies seraient dénuées d’originalité ; qu’en effet, le photographe conserve le choix de la luminosité, de la distance de prise de vue, de l’objectif, des filtres, des contrastes. »

Also all Louvre copyrights are registered at the BnF, which only accepts legal registrations.
  • 5 What is the relevant policy on the commons?

Commons:Licensing:
The safest way to apply international copyright law is to consider the laws of all the relevant jurisdictions and then use the most restrictive combination of laws to determine whether something is copyrighted or not. The jurisdictions that might need to be considered are:

  • The place where the work was created;
  • The place where the work is being uploaded from;
  • The place that any web server the work has been downloaded from physically is;
  • The United States.


A work is only allowed on Commons if it is either public domain in all relevant jurisdictions or if there is a free licence which applies to the work in all relevant jurisdictions.
Please if people who disagree reply can you name the particular point you are disagreeing with, for simplicity. Jackaranga 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also on a side note, what were people thinking in the previous discussion ? What did the people who voted keep believe the disclaimers that come with PD-Art are for ? It clearly says: "'OK' means that under national law such 'faithful reproduction' photographs can have no copyright, regardless of how much skill and effort went into taking the picture." ! France is not 'OK' Did people not read this or what is the whole PD-Art thing for if it is not applied ? Someone just needs to go take a picture of the painting it's no big deal, there must be thousands of free images out there, why choose a copyrighted one ? Jackaranga 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear copyright infringement. If we are going to keep such images, we will have to delete Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag --Kjetil r 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've looked at the google translation of the French page (surprisingly good): [1]. It's abundantly clear that French laws says that some form of creativity must be involved. In this case, there is no creativity whatsoever, not even for lighting, etc. It is simply a picture. In order to show creativity, the following is necessary:
(bad French translation) It is enough that the photographs show a sense of originality; the mere fact that multiple copies of the same tables are not enough to show that the photographs would be lacking in creativity; that Indeed, the photographer retains the choice of brightness, the distance shooting, the objective, filters, contrasts. "
  • However, further down the page, it is made quite clear that there are photos that miss the criteria for establishing originality:
The choices claimed were primarily designed to reproduce the natural environment and blue original artwork, and do not constitute elements likely to express an original work and staff but with the sole purpose of reproducing the artwork (etc.) with as much precision as possible in order to represent him as the public perceives.... Moreover, the mission entrusted to the photographer was to make a faithful reproduction of works of art to form the fund documentation Gallery (etc.) which excludes a priori any subjectivity or interpretation by the photographer. "
  • This last statement, in bold, says it all: because the mission is solely to reproduce the photograph, the photo taker can claim no copyright. If any representation follows this last criterion, it is this one. Pd-art, clearly. Keep. Patstuart 21:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright is registered at the BnF, they don't accept illegal registrations. Also the source photo includes the frame, so there was some creativity involved. Even in the USA it can't be PD if the frame is in the photo. Simply cropping the frame doesn't make the image become PD, even in the USA, especially as you can't modify a copyrighted work. Jackaranga 09:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a frame around a non-copyrighted picture, then claiming the underlying scan of the picture is a sad piece of lawying. I stand by my position: the current photo shows no creativity, and this is a cheap attempt to take the copyright not belonging to them. I truly doubt that this would hold up in court, even in France, which seems to be protective of its copyrights. The point is, the academy may have allowed a copyright of the Mona Lisa with a nice looking border, but I don't think they meant that they could claim the underlying scan is a copyright. Patstuart 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous! The mona lisa "copyright" (if there was such a thing at the time) has _long_ since expired, and it makes no sense to attribute an additional copyright to a photo of it.. we can't upload the mona lisa itself can we? How would we upload a canvas? --65.161.73.250 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing the PD status of the Mona Lisa. What is being disputed is the PD status of this particular reproduction by the Louvre. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.. Pwnt. --65.161.73.250 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask a dumb question? What difference does French law make here? This is an American site hosted on servers in Florida. This image is pretty clearly PD in the United States, whatever the rules are in France. I believe there are laws against depicting Muhammad (or Jesus, for that matter) in Saudi Arabia, and restrictions on swastikas in Germany... but we don't worry about those laws here.Chowbok 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone get (another) reproduction of this paiting? The day this file will be deleted, people will focus on local uploads again (where they often don't care about copyright) and the remaining support for Commons will be gone. --Polarlys 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's Image:Leonardo da Vinci 042.jpg from the Yorck project. And Image:Mona Lisa-gutenberg121 1.jpg from the Gutenberg project. (Although the Gutenberg people don't say where they got it from...) The Yorck project one could maybe be improved in Photoshop, the colors are terrible. Lupo 20:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is not bad Image:Mona Lisa.jpeg Jackaranga 04:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Louvre photo shows a frame, the version uploaded here, however, has that frame removed. The Louvre photo, which includes the frame, is copyrightable, and of course it can thus be registered at the BnF. However, if you remove the frame, what remains is a reproduction of the painting and no frame anymore. Hence, the cropped version looses copyright status. The argument is based on the incorrect assumption that if a photo is copyrighted as a whole, then any cropped version of it must be so, too. --rtc 11:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are you serious? This painting is over 500 years old, I am pretty sure the copyright is expired. See also: w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. --Indolences 21:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can't just vote ourselves a new legal position. We can disagree with the law but we have no power to change it. The image in question is not the Mona Lisa but the photo; if this had been published in the US it would have been PD; but it was published in France and it's copyright there; the US accepts French copyrights, so the photo is copyright in the US. --Simonxag 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, nomination withdrawn. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Mona Lisa.jpg

[edit]

The template used on the image description page, Template:PD-Art, says: "This photograph was taken in the U.S. or in another country where a similar rule applies" and points to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag to find such countries. But Louvre is given as the source of the image and France is not in the list of countries "where a similar rule applies". Thus it is not clear that the photograph is in the public domain in France and I rather suspect it isn't. I selected this image, which is used "on at least 465 pages in 92 projects", intentionally as a test case. Are we going to really apply the requirement that images should be free in the countries of their original publication (rather than just in the US)? If so there are very many images which need to be deleted. Many of those are very popular and widely used images. Alternatively we can settle for images being PD in the United States. Haukurth 14:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Rewrote for clarity. Haukurth 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, right? Kjetil r 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - is there any law or case law in France concerning copyright on photos of old 2D art?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is the sense of copyright according all international conventions to give incentives for creativity and originality. A mere reproduction lacks originality, this has been shown very diligently by the bridgeman v. Corel judge. There is no reason to think that EU right protects mere reproductions, the only individuality is that of the creator da Vinci who is long dead. Master Jimbo has listed such paintings under his thoughtful 10 things which should be free. It was an error of Commons to go after national dysplasias of copyright. We should accept bridgeman v. Corel for all countries and wait until we are sued from a dyspalsia-country --Historiograf 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going to accept Bridgeman v. Corel for all countries, as you put it, we must change Template:PD-Art to reflect this. In my opinion this would only make sense if we decide that Commons material only needs to be free in the US. I would be fine with that. I think we in the sense of The Wikimedia Foundation will only be sued in the US. Haukurth 20:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth noting that Jimbo listed this as one of the things that should be free because it is not yet free. Haukurth 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's not {{PD-art}} it is for sure {{PD-old}} because Da Vinci is dead since 1519.
    From my point of view this is a senseless discussion --D-Kuru 21:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one disputes that Mona Lisa is in the public domain and that if you take a photograph of the painting you can do whatever you want with it. The only question is whether photographs of Mona Lisa are in the public domain in France. Haukurth 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So when should we use {{PD-Art}} then? --Kjetil r 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I would use {{PD-art}}
Haukurth said that he is not sure if {{PD-art}} is a valid licence, because he doesn't know if France is a country "where a similar rule applies". So I wrote that if it's not {{PD-art}} it is {{PD-old}} (amongst others to point out that this is a useless dicusion)
--D-Kuru 15:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is {{PD-art}} for if you can always use {{PD-old}} instead? Haukurth 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Is this even the louvre image? On their website [2] they have 2 lower res, framed images, so this debate while interesting may not apply to this image, also if you check the upload history for this image there are 2 different uploads and since you are allowed to photograph this painting, I have a feeling this isn't even from the louvre website considering the quality difference Madmax32 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting point. The Internet Archive doesn't have an old enough copy of the page for us to tell. But if we don't know where it's from then, again, we don't know whether its country of origin is one "where a similar rule applies". Haukurth 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to D-Kuru and Historiograf - No copyright infringement... --FSHL 19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry to be a spoil-sport but... The Louvre appear to believe that their material is copyrightable as all of their images are specifically tagged as such, even those which would qualify as public domain in the USA. Therefore, if the image uploaded was indeed from the Louvre's website then it is copyright and so should be deleted. However, if the image was not uploaded from their site then the "source" information is incorrect, and was possibly added in an attempt to cover up copyright infringement of another website. Either way, unless specific case law can be found to indicate otherwise, the indications are firmly that {{PD-art}} is not OK for images created in France and this particular version of the Mona Lisa ought to be deleted. Pyrope 16:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether the Louvre thinks they own the copyright is irrelevant. No copyrightable creation. --Dschwen 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment What you state is true in the USA, but certainly not in the UK and many other countries, as explained on the Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag page! As credited here (i.e. the source information is given as the Louvre) the image comes under French copyright law. As I said above, if this image is not from the Louvre (it may, for instance, be a scan of a reproduction from a book) then although it may be covered by US law, it is incorrectly sourced and should therefore be deleted on those grounds. You may be able to upload it to the English Wikipedia (hosted in USA) on a "Fair Use" rationale, but that justification is not valid for Commons. The evidence as it stands indicates that 2D reproductions may well be copyrightable in France, and you need to find proof that they are not before this image should be allowed to stay. Pyrope 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and in fact no proof was provided that was in fact from the Louvre website. Madmax32 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case the source is unknown, which would be an even better reason to delete it. Haukurth 23:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify that I agree with the statements that it lacks creative content to be copyrighted as well. Madmax32 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You contradict yourself. The issue at stake is whether French copyright law resembles US or UK practice. If the image is incorrectly sourced then it should be deleted in any case as it may well be from a copyrightable source! The world does not run to US regulations, this is why uploading rules are different for Commons than for specific language wikis. Pyrope 10:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a simple 2D replica of the Mona Lisa has no essential copyrightable elements. The copyright in the picture is long expired. The Louvre sells his pictures to Bill Gates many years (15?) ago - with no real consequence for european and worldwide rights. For exemple: in Germay there is no copyright like in the United States... If the french wikipedia has problems with it, it's there problem. --Herrick 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's nothing more to say. Marcus Cyron 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, see Historiograf (until the word „dead“ ;-)). If you think this reproduction is protected by french copyright law, please refer this paragraph. A single request for deletion is probably the wrong attempt for an intended meta discussion BTW. --Polarlys 21:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Mona_Lisa.jpg&oldid=71022927"