Commons:Deletion requests/File:Russell Park Mural - geograph.org.uk - 552646.jpg
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.
Blatant copyvio - I tagged this for speedy deletion but the tag was removed because of "FOP in the UK". This is utter nonsense, a mural is a graphic work, not one of "artistic craftsmanship". You can see TV news items in the UK about a mural where the the thing itself is not shown. Simonxag (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose- Marginal at best- there is no need for hyperbole. The image shows the entire building, the graphic wraps onto five surfaces so in hardly clearly 2D. The mural is referred to in the title, and is in the centre of the shot but only occupies about 20% of the image, and would not be adequate as the principle image for an article on the same. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The title of the image refers to the mural because this is the subject of the photograph: the proportion of the image that is occupied by it is irrelevant. The photo has been composed to give a good view of the mural rather than the (very unimportant) building and the photographer has chosen a sensible title to reflect this obvious fact. It would be possible to photograph the building without concentrating on the mural in this way, in fact any other view would do this. And would you go into any court in the world and claim that something is not a graphic work because the surface it's painted on isn't completely flat? --Simonxag (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The image shows a building that has been given a paint job, it shows it's location in a park (park is mentioned in the title) and gives geodata. I can see no evidence that "It would be possible to photograph the building without concentrating on the mural in this way, in fact any other view would do this" there may be murial on the sides or back, trees may obscure other vantage points, The actual murial is rather low pixel, If you wanted to reproduce the murial you'd go closser up. Oxyman (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I know the building: There is not a mural on the sides or back. The shape of the building is not visible in the photo, but that is hardly surprising as this is not a photo of the building. The mural takes up as much of the image as is possible without using a non-standard shape. Other elements in the picture only serve as background for it. --Simonxag (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I've checked, the mural does extend down both sides but not the back. You don't notice it so much on the side as it's partially obscured by side panels set about a metre from the main wall. This photograph actually crops off parts of the building to only show the mural. --Simonxag (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Having now looked at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom I would conclude that there is 3d elemens in ths image "The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." I think this covers it Oxyman (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The image shows a building that has been given a paint job, it shows it's location in a park (park is mentioned in the title) and gives geodata. I can see no evidence that "It would be possible to photograph the building without concentrating on the mural in this way, in fact any other view would do this" there may be murial on the sides or back, trees may obscure other vantage points, The actual murial is rather low pixel, If you wanted to reproduce the murial you'd go closser up. Oxyman (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- The title of the image refers to the mural because this is the subject of the photograph: the proportion of the image that is occupied by it is irrelevant. The photo has been composed to give a good view of the mural rather than the (very unimportant) building and the photographer has chosen a sensible title to reflect this obvious fact. It would be possible to photograph the building without concentrating on the mural in this way, in fact any other view would do this. And would you go into any court in the world and claim that something is not a graphic work because the surface it's painted on isn't completely flat? --Simonxag (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- comment low resolution makes the whole affair moot. It doesn't reveal much of the picture (one must reinvent it mentally), but then what's the point of stocking the picture? NVO (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete (as nominator) - I have uploaded a photo of the building File:RussellParkChangingRooms.JPG which both makes the geograph image unnecessary (if you think it's of the building) and illustrates what I was saying abouut how the subject was framed and cropped. I do find the response to the deletion request disturbing: we are supposed to be trying to protect users of our library from copyright claims - we can't assign ourselves or anyone else new legal rights. --Simonxag (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because a mural is painted on two or more surfaces does not make it any less a graphic work. There is nothing in the UK law that draws a distinction between 2D and 3D works -- that is only our shorthand for convenience. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
