Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wheel life 01.jpg

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.

Image:Wheel life 01.jpg[edit]

Keep- unless the author is complaining

Derivative work. Owning the physical painting doesn't mean you own the copyright. --William Avery 18:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and wonder about: This image was selected as a picture of the day for February 2, 2005. --Polarlys 18:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep If the owner can't release a photo of its painting, who can? (note that there're not two identical paintings). IANAL but when you buy the work that right would be given too: it's sold, not licensed. And the original comcept of hte wheel life is public domain. Platonides 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If the owner can't release a photo of its painting, who can?" - The author can, see also Commons:Derivative works. And this isn't about "the concept of the wheel of life" but a work of fine arts of which User:Henryart probably isn't the author. --Melanom 12:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the author did one copy and sold to Henryart. So he's allowing him to publish it in his office or his dining room. Publishing in wikipedia is not such different here. Platonides 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed very much different, as the material on Commons is explicitly supposed to be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. I doubt this is what the original author intended and I doubt he suceeded these rights to the person he sold his work to. --Melanom 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author couldn't use it commercially if it's the only copy (he can create more similar works). Platonides 13:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Platonides--Anupamsr 23:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, copyvio. Unless the original painting turns out to be public domain, but that would require adequate source information (who is the painter?) to determine. —Angr 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I am the owner of the original painting. It may be that there are some juridical rights of the painter. But all people who know the history of the "wheel of life" know, that this painting was given from buddha himself (what would buddha say if we would ask him to let it stay in WIKIPEDIA?) to the mankind to recognize the meaning of life an the consequences of decisions, feelings and works. From this point of view this picture should be a gift to all people. In the last years I had a lot of requests from authors and movie-makers to us this pictures for their publications and I never wanted to get money for this. I only requested one example of the product, in which it was used. In this way many people had the chance to think about the meaning of their life from another point of view. I accept the higher rights of the painter of this picture, who lives somewhere in Bhutan. But the painting is without signature and I dont know who made it, I just bought it in the year 2000 in the BHUTAN-PAVILLON at the WORLD EXPO in Hannover/ Germany. If there is somebody who can prove, that he has painted this picture and dont want to stay it further in WIKIPEDIA I immediatley agree to delete it. Please excuse my bad English. henryart 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been closed kept by me, but was contested. I can see why and reopened the case. Siebrand 07:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep This is a painting, not a print or similar. So it would be possible for the author to sell the physical copy and keep the copyright, but it would be unusual. I am satisfied that the owner of the physical copy also owns the copyright, so no issue. Ben Aveling 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. This is really a blatantly obvious case if you know the first thing about copyright. The transfer of the material rights to the physical representation of the work has absolutely no impact on the immaterial rights to the work, such as the author's copyright. Copyright is the right to control the creation and distribution of copies (hence "copyright") of a work of art. Copyright explicitly distinguishes between displaying a work and distributing it.[1] Hence, owning a copy (regardless of how many issues of the work are in circulation) is not the same as holding the copyright. This is a very fundamental concept to the whole idea of copyright. And yes, copyright infringement is a valid reason for deletion. I don't know what would possess anyone to claim otherwise, unless, of course, they're just copying and pasting a standard "vote" to every deletion discussion, or what's meant to be a discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a print. The uploader does not own a copy of the original, which as you rightly point out would not give them the right to further distribute copies and would justify deletion. In this case, the uploader owns the original painting, which by default gives them ownership of the copyright. It's possible to separate the two, but very uncommon and there is no reason to believe that it has happened in this case. The only residual right that the artist has is the moral right to assert that they are the artist. When I create something for my employer, they own the copyright, not me. This is no different. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where this fixation with it not being a print comes in. Again, copyright is not concerned with material objects but with immaterial works. Works created for an employer are works for hire, which involves a contract for work. The default assumption if no such contract is present is that there is no transfer of copyrights. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to LX - An artist painter works always for hire – that’s just the definition of a professional artist, everything else is simply a hobby... --FSHL 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're confusing "for profit" with "work for hire". Work for hire is a well-defined legal concept that applies to works created by an employee for an employer (artists who sell their works to the general public are not employed by their customers; they're usually self-employed) or created under a written contract which specifically mentions the words "work for hire".[2] —LX (talk, contribs) 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete LX is spot on. It's not a work made for hire (at least not made for hire for the current owner of the physical object). Unless the purchase contract also contained a clause on a transfer of copyrights to the owner of the physical object, the copyrights remain with the artist. And I'd like to see a source for it to be "very uncommon" to have copyrights separated from physical ownership, as Ben Aveling claimed above. AFAIK, it's exactly the other way 'round. Lupo 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment to Lupo - Definitively not! But you’ve got the right to make photography’s of your Picasso and if you want, to share them as cc-by-sa-2.0... --FSHL 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Derivative works. If I wanted to publish a copy (such as a photograph), I would have to respect Picasso's copyright. Lupo 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the "first sale doctrine". This Verbreitungsrecht is about the rights on a particular Werkstück, i.e., copy of the work. Once a copy has been sold, the new owner is free to re-sell or exhibit or hide away that copy. But he's not free to produce new copies, that'd be the Vervielfältigungsrecht, which in Austrian law is covered by §15. The right to produce copies is what is important here. Lupo 08:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Siebrand 08:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Wheel_life_01.jpg&oldid=76013013"