Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork.jpg

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.

Previous nominations

File:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork.jpg This image infringes the copyright of the sculptor, Richard Serra.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Kept: what we see in the picture is too simple to be an issue of copyright Jcb (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC) 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:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork.jpg No FOP for sculpture in US, and date of piece is late enough that it is inherently copyrighted. Possibly OK on some basis, but if so that needs to be explained. Not de minimis because given its title the picture is clearly intended to show the sculpture, not the landscape. Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Ah, I now see that this was discussed once before (recently) but no annotation was added to the permissions area of the page. I'll presume Jcb knows whereof he speaks, although I would not have drawn the same conclusion. I'll copy that to the file page so this does not keep coming up; feel free to close this discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)  Delete Very similar pieces by Serra have been registered by the US copyright office and people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for his work. If it were really so simple, we could all get rich doing it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Jim, the argument on the other side is that this shows barely a corner of a large sculpture sticking out into the landscape, so I'm not certain this is analogous to most photos of his works. I see you are the previous nominator, so I assume this amounts to "my opinion hasn't changed" rather than anything new. Do you feel you are saying anything that addresses Jcb's reason for previous close as keep? - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)  Keep - I cannot imagine that this photo would infringe on anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)  Keep - the artwork is likely to be ineligible for copyright in the US because it consists of a simple geometric shape. In anycase, the photograph does not contain any copyrightable expression. --Claritas (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)  Keep - An even closer view of this work has existed on Commons since 2005 and not been challenged. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC) This sheet of iron is only part of the work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Keep: below threshold of originality. A.J. (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 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:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork.jpg Copyvio of nonfree recent sculpture in the US ɱ (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC) @Ɱ: This was twice kept on the basis that the visible artwork was below the threshold of originality. Has anything changed? - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Okay, I somewhat disagree with the above but I won't contest this. Didn't find that above discussion before. ɱ (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Kept: per Jmabel. Ruthven (msg) 16:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork.jpg

There's very low threshold of originality for American sculptures. Even simple sculptures depicting daily objects by Claes Oldenburg are copyrighted (evidenced by 2012 takedown action by the camp of Oldenburg against Wikimedia Foundation). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dark Star Park.jpg. Even the permission field implies some uncertainty ("In October 2011 discussion, Jcb concluded, with reference to Serra's sculpture 'what we see in the picture is too simple to be an issue of copyright'..., however, this is just a conclusion by an administrator of this site, and should not be taken as legal advice. Reusers may want to consider whether they need further clearances.). This uncertainty runs counter to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. As long as U.S. doesn't have FOP for all copyrighted public art, images with uncertain level of freeness because they bear sculptures or other public art cannot be permitted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Keep Sorry but per the second archived discussion this is below COM:TOO US, see what @Claritas: said above.  Delete It's better to reword the COM:TOO US based on this case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Keep. Simple geometrical figure, not copyrightable. US has quite high threshold of originality anyway. Taivo (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: but not for public art. The TOO is mostly for things like logos and symbols, but U.S. courts tend to favor sculptors or their heirs over the general public (ex. Mr. Davidson and USPS case over the Vegas replica of the Lady Liberty). See the case of 2012 Oldenburg DMCA take down notice, some of Oldenburg's works are simple, yet their images here were also taken down due to that. Unless a great change will come in the U.S. that will finally favor the general public - the introduction of commercial FOP for all U.S. public art. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not seen any evidence for that so far. Only link to dark star sculpture DR – the dark star sculpture is really more complex. Taivo (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Info @Taivo: found one passage at w:Copyright law of the United States#Useful articles. While it is intended for things like printed décors on useful articles (e.g. T-shirts), the court interpretation here seems to confirm the "relatively low threshold for pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features on useful articles to be eligible for copyright protection". It contrasts sharply with the US TOO for logos and trademark symbols. Thus there is low TOO for artistic objects like artistic works and artistic features on useful articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The passage applies only for useful objects. This sculpture is not a useful object. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: To me, I can sit down on it, so I doubt if it's not useful. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please also note that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork2.jpg was closed as deleted, so that won't be below TOO US. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This was incorrect closure. Liuxinyu, you can sit on almost everything enough big, this does not make the object useful. Taivo (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: What's your think of the Taivo's "not beyond TOO" comment, as the deletion was decided by you? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think if it's uploaded as public art in the US, and the US has no FOP, it's really not up to us to decide if it's art or not art, but to apply the COM:FOP for US and also COM:PRP. Both pictures are clearly labeled as art and the artist was cited. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: It's not up to us to decide if it's art or not art, but it is up to us to decide if it's (1) copyrightable, (2) de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: As far as I looked up that sculpture, it has some complex enough figures, though their colors are grey and hence finding them can be hard, but not really impossible, I don't see why Taivo's "not beyond TOO" claim can work, as for DM, this can only be and must be answered by the uploader @Tilted Spheres: (likely but not absolutely, the author of this image) even though inactive for 13 years. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Taivo, Ellin Beltz, Jmabel, and Liuxinyu970226: I found an article that relates to the Statue of Liberty replica case. Under "Three Lessons You Need to Take Away from USPS’s accidental copyright-infringement case.", the number two is "To be original, a work does not have to be completely unique:  Originality can be subtle and still be recognized. This is because most copyright laws only require some degree of creativity. The United States Supreme Court has once held that the required degree of creativity is “extremely low”. In Nigeria, an artistic, literary, or musical work enjoys copyright protection once sufficient effort is expended on it to give it an original character. This is irrespective of literary quality." This seems to imply the TOO for artistic works in the United States is very low (contrasting with high bar of TOO for things like logos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. Richard Serra (born 1938) is a minimalistic land artist. His work can be photographed with a free licence in countries with FOP, but not in US. This work can not be compared to a simple geometric form such as a simple logo. It is placed at a certain point and a certain orientation in the landscape, determined by the artist. The combination of design and location are copyrighted and therefore the image must be deleted. Nor is this a detail of a bigger sculpture, as can be noted from the other deleted image, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork2.jpg. --Ellywa (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)