Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orastie Ethnography Museum 2011 - Dacian Draco.JPG

Photograph of a non-free sculpture. Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, File:Orastie Ethnography Museum 2011 - Dacian Draco-1.JPG. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is a museum item, not a non-free sculpture! --Codrin.B (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems modern. When and by whom was it created? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous and irrelevant in this context. What rule are you invoking for this deletion request?! --Codrin.B (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this is not a "scupture". It is a reenactment of a Dacian draco for museum purposes. It consists of a real wolf head and and a leather tail. We are not talking about artists and art here! --Codrin.B (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an object of art created by an artist. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your twisted interpretation of "art" with which it is impossible to reason. Is a stuffed bird in natural history museum art?! This is a stuffed wolf head, to illustrate the symbol of the Dacians. It is from an archaeology museum entirely focused on the Dacian culture. It is not from a modern art museum! --Codrin.B (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep While almost impossible to determine the author, the Draco is a reproduction of an ancient sculpture, without enough original work to justify new copyright.--Strainu (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ancient sculpture exactly? If it is not a replica, it is copyrightable. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here, this Trajan's Column relief is at the basis of Dacian Draco replica, such as this.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be qualified as a derivative work, not as a replica (it is not an exact copy of the relief). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common replica in Romania, at least. -- Saturnian (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Romanian copyright law (law 8 of 1996) speaks of protecting "works of intellectual creation". A museum exhibit, almost by definition, is not a new intellectual creation but a reproduction of another creation, in cases where the exhibit isn't an original object. In this situation, the intellectual creator presumably died around 100 AD, meaning his copyright expired around 170 AD, if we are to apply Romanian law retroactively to the age of Marcus Aurelius. So we're safe. You can rest easy, Eleassar, in the knowledge that Dacian hordes are not going to rise out of their graves, cross the Atlantic and rush to the Federal courthouse in Norfolk, Virginia, which would have jurisdiction due to Wikimedia servers being located there. - Biruitorul (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a reproduction, because nothing exactly like it existed in the past. Intellectual effort and creativity had to be input in its design. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleassar, Codrinb just showed you an example of such a thing on Trajan's Column and you're saying that it is not a reproduction? How does that work?--Strainu (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a derivative work, not an exact copy. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your arguments are? A museum is not a exhibition hall: when making reproductions, their employees take great care to reproduce the old artefact as precisely as possible, they don't "recast, transform, or adapt" as is mentioned in the law. en:Dacian_Draco gives a description of the device, with numerous sources, which sounds just one would describe this image.--Strainu (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the public part of the museum is like an exhibition hall, and they do "recast, transform or adapt". If they wanted to reproduce the old artefact from the Traian's Column as precisely as possible, they would make it of marble. A site featuring some Dacian dragons is [1]; they're similar, but none of them is the same as some other. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so from this discussion your conclusion is that Dracos where made out of marble? I guess all those sources in the en.wp article talking about the wolf head etc. are mere works of the imagination then...

I understand that you take the commons policies to the letter (why by itself is a terrible idea), but you need to see what each of these words really mean in the context of a certain scientific field. And I'm pretty sure that museum workers and professional artists have very different working methods.--Strainu (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You understand incorrectly. My conclusion is that the relief at Trajan's Column, which has been referenced above, is made from marble, therefore if someone wanted to do a replica of it, he should choose the same material. The intent of the public part of the museum is to present history to the general public, not to foster advances in a certain scientific field, and to do so the museum uses creative works as much as anybody else. Your idea that items kept in a museum can't be copyrighted is funny and far-fetched. It is also clear from the link that I cited above that fabric-made dracos are diverse and as such creative works different enough to be copyrightable. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete If you combine parts of animals with other objects, you may create art. For example, the Swedish Museum for Modern Art has a goat with a tyre around the stomach in its collection (image, Wikipedia article). That goat is an artwork by Category:Robert Rauschenberg and appears to be copyrighted. I don't see why this item in Romania would be any different. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You may create art" does not necessarily mean "you do create art". The difference between a goat with a tire and a wolf head with snake-like tail are the historic sources: the draco is described in historic documents in just the form from this picture (see en.wp article), while the goat is just a work of art.

I agree that my previous claim that "A museum is not a exhibition hall" is untrue for art museums. So let me rephrase that: a science museum is not an art museum, and MCDR is a science museum.--Strainu (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep For those who don't know, this is a common replica of Dacian Draco from Trajan's Column that can be found on several history museums in Romania. -- Saturnian (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Most of the discussion above misunderstands copyright. Taxidermy is copyrightable. Animals stuffed in a museum have a copyright. If I sit down and paint a copy of a Rembrandt, long PD, even if I were an expert copyist and my work could fool experts, my work would still have its own copyright. This is by no means an exact copy of something ancient, but simply a represenation of it in a different form. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]