Commons:Deletion requests/works by Claes Oldenburg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

works by Claes Oldenburg

[edit]

Following wmf:DMCA Oldenburg, it seems sensible to delete all remaining media showing Oldenburg works which rely on non-US FOP. So Category:Chiat/Day Building is fine, but the following aren't:

Note also

--Rd232 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. These DR should be reverted immediately. By the so-far-I've-seen-applied-everywhere rule of "we deal with it as it comes up", please note that these images are not listed in any DMCA notice. Wikipedia/Wikimedia is not obligated to guess what will be listed next by, or to do the work of, an alleged copyright holder. Let's not be driven by fear. Let's not encourage deletionism, either. I suggest another solution, for example: moving to Wikipedia with appropriate fair-use rationale if and only if needed. In fact, are there tools for moving images from Commons to Wikipedia, or what's the correct template to add? --Lexein (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Commons fair use upload bot. Rd232 (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all First it have to be checked wether this DCMA Oldenburg is correct acccording to all rules. If it is correct - I oppose to that in several pieces - only this pieces - where that rules apply correctly - mentioned there should be removed. There should be no leading obedience! As it is a legal matter we should follow pedantically the text, where it apply. The moving to wiki with the appropriate rules should be te last solution but it would be one.
I also state here, that we need servers in a neutral country with reasonable copyright laws to store things, that make problems in America. I. e. The change of the copyright deadline from 70 to 90 years in retrospect is another reason for doing that. The servers in that save country could be managed and owned by a chapter located in the that country, ore by one of the big non US-Chapters. There should be no legal connection to the foundation through which the U.S. copyright can be applied. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 06:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
We have that. It is called Wikilivres and it hosted by Wikimedia Canada in Canada. Yann (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately Delete. We've known for a long time that these images are probably copyrighted in the U.S. and probably don't meet Commons copyright policy. However, since no one had pushed the issue before, we chose to leave them. Indeed, we had a discussion on the Village Pump about this very issue earlier this year. Until U.S. FoP law is changed, we have to respect U.S. law even if it leads to absurd situations like this. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? At least in Germany (this one was shot in NL, of course) it does really matter and a prominent FOP case was lost in court, because the photo was shot out of another building. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that case was precisely because German FOP was more restrictive than Austrian. I think Dutch FOP is more like Austrian, and seems fine for this: Commons:FOP#The_Netherlands. Rd232 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, but not for the reason given by the nominator, which I think is currently too expansive. The five six photos listed for deletion here are of artworks listed (#s 3, 6, 12, 13, & 15) in the Oldenburg DMCA notice received by the WMF. So the "red flag" test would seem to apply to such photos, and I think the WMF would thus be obliged to delete them if they were made aware that these photos are hosted here. By deleting them first, we would save the WMF from this small trouble. --Avenue (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: the only sliver of logic I could see for opposing deletion of these is the distant possibility that the works depicted in these photos were deliberately excluded. If all of them were covered in other photos listed in the DMCA notice, then that falls away. Rd232 (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think saving the WMF trouble is not a strong reason for preemptive deletion. Saving the uploaders from potentially being recorded as infringers seems worthwhile to me, however. (And yes, I see one of them has !voted keep here). --Avenue (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best is to write to the DMCA author, asking if these were omissions or not. Then we can take a decision with the information. All images can be copied to Wikilivres. Yann (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say trying to contact Claes Oldenburg personally if possible and not his agency. Yes, it would be interesting to know whether they omitted them intentionally. Nevertheless, we would need written permission and until we get it, I think it's better to delete them or better draw something black/white or whatever over the copyrighted elements, or crop them if it makes sense. -- Rillke(q?) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question When were these made? Did Oldenburg make any of the sculptures together with his wife? If the statues were installed before 1978 (and made in 1954 or later), and without any help from Oldenburg's wife, and installed without a copyright notice, then the sculptures are in the public domain in the United States. See {{PD-US-no notice}} and COM:URAA#Exceptions 1.3. (Also, what's the source for the "dual citizenship" situation in that exception?) --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • right, all the "PD-no notice" ones in the US were takendown. by "dual national" i think they mean Oldenburg was born Swedish, and naturalized US citizen. so URAA applies. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why it says that URAA does apply if you hold dual citizenship or whether it is correct. If a work was first published in the United States, then URAA doesn't apply anyway, regardless of citizenship. The exception tells whether {{PD-US-no notice}} also applies to works first published outside the United States. Also, according to the article en:Claes Oldenburg, he obtained US citizenship in 1953. Also, if you obtained foreign citizenship before the law was changed on 1 July 2001, Swedish citizenship was automatically lost upon obtaining the foreign citizenship, so I'm not sure if there was a way for Oldenburg to keep his Swedish citizenship back in 1953, unless of course there might have been an even older law saying something different. See for example the website for the Swedish embassy which says that if you obtained Swedish citizenship before that date, then you need evidence that you have later regained your previously lost Swedish citizenship. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything that's not specifically mentioned in the DCMA notice. We have no obligation under US law to take down anything that they don't order us to take down, and we have no obligation under German law to do anything about these images. And definitely don't contact the sculptor. We have absolutely no reason to get rid of good content just because we're guessing that they forgot to mention it; if they come back later and complain, we can simply say "You didn't tell us to do this." Let them take the time to find that we didn't delete the images they didn't mention. I'll not argue with WMF legal counsel if they decide to take them down for safety, but there's no way that these should be deleted as the result of a community discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: I personally would say that Claes Oldenbourg is intelligent and has in principle good intentions. I do not think he has omitted some of his works out of error. It may well be possible, that he notified some of his works because he himself had to do so in compliance - explicit or implicit - with contractual obligations he has towards buyers and/or exhibitors, or another reason specifically concerning the images brought to attention. I trust, that Mr Oldenbourg is aware of the courteous and swift action WMF will take in reply to his legitimate requests. Mr Oldenbourg will have no reason to hesitate to request the removal of further images as he sees the need. A removal of the images in question without request could rather be construed as an act of distrust, or even meanness, towards Mr Oldenbourg, whose gentlemanly qualities we should take for granted. OAlexander (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice sentiment I'm sure, but all of the works were depicted in photos covered by the DMCA notice. Rd232 (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep, then revert the deleted ones... --Kim for sure (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i regret that i cannot share the sentiment, that the agents of Oldenburg's estate are "intelligent and has in principle good intentions." we have here a false notice, where they know or should know that the US works cited are in the Public Domain. it would be interesting to find out in discovery what they knew and when they knew it. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC) hmm, new evidence, how dissappointing. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Oldenburgs agents should find out for themselves and should concentrate on users like Los Angeles Times Calgary Sun Flickriver pininterest (this one is not even freedom of panorama). But there is a change that they have to go to court - which our glorious foundation will never do - remember the image filter? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The DMCAs by the artist and his agents are utterly bogus, no laws were broken or are being broken in the countries in which these art works are installed. Actually makes me angry that anyone could think that anyone should think that US courts would have extraterritoriality, to think that US laws and legislation can be used to over ride that of other sovereign nations.--KTo288 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The law is the law even if it is an ass, I'm just livid that a couple of years ago the Wikimedia Foundation was willing to make a stand over PD-art, and ignore the laws of my own home nation over sweat of the brow, yet collapses so easily on this were a genuine case can be made. The thing about migrating to en:wiki under fair use is, we will not be able to keep all the images deleted, maybe just one sufficient to illustrate the art work in question. Similarly returning files back to their orignal wikis, de:wiki it seems in many instances would not negate the fact that the servers are still in the US. What we really need distributed hosting of the project.--KTo288 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed close: Kept
the images listed here were not part of the DMCA takedown notice and we have neither need nor requirement to delete them. We would have to comply with a new DMCA notice though if they want another PR desaster --Denniss (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC) ~~~~[reply]
✓ Done Closed per proposal.

Kept per my comment above. There's no requirement to delete image not requested in the DMCA notice. We shall keep an eye on new uploads of these subjects though to prevent re-uploads. --Denniss (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/works_by_Claes_Oldenburg&oldid=155382310"