Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Santon (figurine)

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.

Files in Category:Santon (figurine)

[edit]

Various figurines. Clearly have authorship and are copyright-eligible.

Attribution Vinazer School AD 1700 ca.

-mattbuck (Talk) 17:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep 1. I don't think it is appropriate or useful to have such a mass deletion request. Every object have a different copyright status, depending of age, originality, etc. 2. Most of these are folklore, which is exempt from copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Folklore is not exempt from copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have {{Folklore}} (though still in development, sure). Jean-Fred (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Same reason written by Yann. In this case it has OTRS permission: ticket #2012100210008483 --DPC (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I think the original creator of that is dead more than 70 years. --Ras67 (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Yann-- Lourdes (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Yann --MarisaLR (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The fact of being based on folklore elements does not translate in lack of copyright of the figures (I mean, a drawing of Bigfoot is covered by copyright regardless of being based on a folklore character, isn't it?). I do think that the deletion request should be broken down in meaningful requests, but most of the figures are not covered by FoP (as it's not a permanent exhibition) nor by De minimis. Therefore, I do think that  Delete would apply to most of the pictures. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep absolutely inappropiate mass deletion request which does not take into consideration the individual file descriptions. Posting a deletion request like this is highly disruptive to our project and should be approapiatly sanctioned.--Wuselig (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this DR is disruptive in any way. This is how Commons works - someone finds something they think may be problematic, so they nominate it for deletion. In this case, you're right, I did not go through with a fine-toothcomb, but it appeared most were works of artistic craftsmanship which did not appear to be on permanent display anywhere. Apologies for any which were covered by FoP or OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the ones which I should clearly never have nominated. The rest are I believe still probably copyrighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour is disruptive for your way of going about things. For whatever reason ever you decide that crib-figures should be deleted, so you mass them all up into one deletion request, not taking into consideration their individual status. Your so shoddy in your preparation, that you even included the image of a life sheep in your list - for starters even! This is not how Commons works and your "clean-up" is nothing of its name. If you want to do decent work, you should close this DR and put the images you still contest up for individual review. Scattergun methods are disruptive to Commens because of the danger of collateral damage. --Wuselig (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the images from Gutenzell are baroque figures from the 18th century, for God's sake. Most of the other stuff is old enough or simply a work of non-copyrightable folk "art". This deletion request is ridiculous. The author didn't even bother to read the desctiptions. I didn't photograph and upload dozens of images of historical nativity scenes in museums and describe them meticulously to be faced by such a lazy and stupid deletion request.

 Keep, and block the deletion request writer. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 19:10, 14 February
 Keep Same reason written by several customers - Daniel71953 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Same reasons written above --Nicolás Pérez (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Yann, especially we can't judge a whole mass deletion in one single decision, there are pictures for different countries, it would be nice to judge separately depending on the countries jurisprudences, and depending if each figurine is original or serial works, and depending when they have been built, etc etc... Jeriby (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, and block the deletion request writer! die Figuren bei "Krippe Wolfurt" sind über 100 Jahre alt. --Böhringer (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where is the santon in File:20111125Hockenheim1.jpg ? I couldn't find any.--Stanzilla (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I thought those might be model sheep, but guess not. Still think we should delete that one though, on the grounds that a sheep once stole my lunch. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you spare the real sheeps' image's life if I give you a lunch?--Stanzilla (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Forget it, I just saw it's already remoed from the list, but you can keep the lunch.--Stanzilla (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Such a vast variety of photos with their own characteristics can't be mass deleted. I notice from ancient figures exhibited in museums to probably serial works sold as tourist souvenirs. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all the ones which were obviously in museums. The rest are either
  1. In churches as (probably) temporary works, which thus are not covered under FOP
  2. Serial works which are sold to tourists but are still eligible for copyright
  3. Of indeterminate status
-mattbuck (Talk) 21:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If serial works are protected from depiction by copyright, I expect multimass deletion request affecting all images containing vehicles, clothing and clothed people, landscape or cityscape (landscape architecture and urbanism are also subject of copyright) and whatever. Please, use a good sense about essence and function of copyright. I think, it's not in total tabooing of the works. Not all countries are so extremist to consider every depiction as a reproduction (multiplication) of the work. Not all countries have so absurdly broad regulation of derivative works. Is copyright violated by a man who remember his experience from the sculpture and narrate about them thereafter? Such narration is also a "derivative work". Wouldn't be absurd to forbid people to remember, talk about and depict whatever copyrighted? --ŠJů (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vehicles are classed as utilitarian items and so are exempt from copyright, as is clothing. Natural landscape has no authorship and so is not copyrightable; cityscapes/artifical landscapes may or may not be protected depending on the relevant juristiction's freedom of panorama laws. Copyright is not created for common sense, it was created to extort as much money as possible from people. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Utilitarian art is not art? Not many countries has such exception – here were many deletion requests related e.g. to utilitarian buildings through lack of FOP. Purely natural landscape is hardly to find – cultivated landscape is always a result of people activity and has its aesthetic aspect. Fortunately, not all types of art are so much affected by absurd application of copyright. I hope, no fanatic will propose to remove all such images. --ŠJů (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Most of these figurines are traditional folklore, repeated for centuries, and are not copyrighted. Matou91 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you seem to misunderstand copyright. Things don't have to be registered for copyright, they automatically have it. By creating something, you create with it the copyright. That you based it on something which is public domain (eg a landscape, folklore, etc) is irrelevant, it is still copyrighted. This applies to literature, photographs, sculptures and anything where the aesthetic can be separated from the utilitarian. Unless the sculptor is either dead 70 years, or explicitly released the figurines under a free licence, or, dependant on freedom of panorama laws, the figurines are permanently situated in a public place, they are copyrighted works. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the point being made. Where there is no original input, there cannot be copyright. This is the whole point of Commons:Threshold of originality. Matou91 contends that the design of many santon figurines has basically stayed the same for centuries, without low or inexistent creative input from the santon maker. French copyright law tends to deny copyright to folklore works (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/07#Folklore art does not have copyright?). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the diversity extant within this category, I don't buy a "minimal creative input" argument. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please make a minimal effort to understand other people's arguments. Again: in many cases, the design of each santon figurine has basically stayed the same for centuries. For each type there is low or inexistent creative input from the santon maker. We should consider the TOO of each figurine/series of figurines, but with such a massive DR it's not really an easy task. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

, , , ,

Português: Paz e bem! Trata-se de arte popular, sem identificação de autoria.
English: Popular art: unknown author

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That an author is unknown is irrelevant unless it's been more than 70 years since publication of the work. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian Law
English: Law No. 9.610 of February 19, 1998 (Copyright and Neighboring Rights)
1. This Law governs copyright, the term encompassing the rights of authors and neighboring rights.
[ . . . ]
45. In addition to the works in respect of which the protection of the economic rights has expired, the following shall pass into the public domain:
I. the works of authors deceased without heir;
II. the works of unknown authors, subject to the legal protection of ethnic and traditional lore.
From: http://web.archive.org/web/20110604224823/http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=125392
Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question though is the author really unknowable, or just currently unknown - ie could the author be found without an unreasonable amount of effort. Because we don't know the author doesn't mean no one does. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment do Eugenio Hansen, OFS explained it correctly; what you do not understand about this law? You are applying a very personal approach. Lourdes (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that we don't know the author does not mean the author is unknown. Show me a painting, I doubt I'd know who the artist was, even if it was someone very famous. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Mattbuck: Do you have the right to edit and mutilate the editions of users? You deleted... Lourdes (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware that I removed a duplicate of a large section above. There is no need to quote the law again, it only clutters things up here. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Usted no tiene ningún derecho, aunque estuviera duplicado el párrafo. Usted no tiene derecho a manipular los mensajes de los usuarios. Una acción semejante habría producido una amonestación en es:Wikipedia, pero al parecer es usted intocable. Me retiro de esta página muy decepcionada por dos cosas: la forma arbitraria en que se ha elaborado la lista para borrar y la forma arbitraria que tiene usted, señor Mattbuck, de cambiar a su gusto los mensajes de los usuarios. Lourdes (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paz e bem! : Keep Em respeito à legislação brasileira (cujo texto em português foi apagado da discusão). Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please keep the images of santons. The Santon I used to illustrate the Mistral wind, for example, is a very old and traditional design, used by many different artists in many different parts of Provence over the years. It's part of Provence history, and similar figures are found in every church in Provence at Christmas. No one knows who first created this design. it's not possible to talk about the folklore and history of Provence if all images of Santons are forbidden.

SiefkinDR (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of Mattbuck's misunderstanding may be due to the fact that someone (stupidly) categorized all kinds of nativity scenes from all over the world in the Category:Santon (figurine), where only the Provencal type should be categorized as such. I have removed all those others from the category. --FA2010 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per consensus, open individuals DR if neccesary Ezarateesteban 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Santon_(figurine)&oldid=91668352"