Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg, not featured[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created by Philippe Halsman - uploaded & nominated by trialsanderrors (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A "making of" version of the famous "Dali Atomicus" photo: in this version all the props holding up the various objects are still visible and the frame on the easel is still empty. (Compare published version.) According to the Library of Congress, the picture is now in the public domain because the copyright has not been renewed.
  •  Info Copyright information: This picture was taken by an American citizen (Halsman) for an American publication (LIFE magazine) in New York City in 1948 and marked as copyrighted (see first upload). As such it falls under {{PD-US-notrenewed}} timespan of 1923 through 1963 for works published in the U.S., i.e. it falls into public domain in the U.S. and shorter term countries unless copyright was renewed. According to the information provided by the Library of Congress, no copyright renewal was found. The U.S. Copyright Office is a branch of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Reading Room, which holds copyright renewal claims prior to 1978, is housed in the Library of Congress. As such, the opinion of the Library of Congress is authorative unless someone is able to provide counterevidence. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is commons not the library of congress. Lycaon (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- trialsanderrors (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Oppose. Cruelty to animals. These cats were thrown in the air 28 times until the photographer was satisfied with the capture. Lycaon (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it's cruelty to animals, but I really can't see why this makes it less suitable as a featured picture. I would recommend abstaining instead of voting strong oppose. --Aqwis (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, this promises to become an interesting discussion. I guess I'll just cite the relevant passage of the guidelines and leave it at that:
      "Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image “speaks” to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations…."
    • This is one of the most famous pictures by one of the best-known photographers of the 20th Century. If it still instills strong passions 60 years after it's been taken that's a pretty good indicator that it fulfills this guideline. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw worst for cruelty in other FP. As far as I'm concerned, throwing a cat 3-4 ft in the air is not cruelty... it may be stressful for the cat, but cruelty? What about those stroboscopic pictures showing how a cat held backwards in the airs will always land on his foots, is that cruelty? --S23678 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed cruelty against people can be far and far worse. But in this case (current nom) the cruelty was solely to make the picture, while in your example the photographer was documenting cruelty of war. Lycaon (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Oppose Public domain for this picture is only possible in the USA. Elsewhere it is an obvious violation of the author's rights.--B.navez (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not seen a guideline that makes some license tags acceptable for Commons but inacceptable for FP. If PD tags of limited geographical reach make a picture inadmissible for FP I will request that all my pictures with those tags be deleted. If there is no such provision the above vote should be ignored as agenda pushing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, unfortunately. Looks like it should be deleted and rehosted locally at en:wiki, where it would probably pass FPC. Suggest adjusting the levels. Durova (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you want to tag 3000 pictures? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes of course this US law doesn't respect most of international laws and right of creators. Owning an object doesn't give any right to make a public use of it. In most of countries, including USA now, creations enter public domain seventy years (the most common duration) after the death of the artist. Who asked Dali and Halsman or their heirs if they agree to this publication? This picture will be PD only in 2055. --B.navez (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The picture is, according to the research of the Library of Congress, in the public domain in the U.S. and the countries that have adopted the shorter term rule (which is the majority). If you believe there is a problem with the legal interpretation, send the picture to deletion request and discuss it there. If you believe Commons should not accept geographically restricted PD images, try to change the rules at the Village Pump. Your comment is out of place at FPC because there is no guideline that limits FP's to unrestricted PD pictures. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The number of other images that may be inappropriately hosted at Commons is irrelevant to this featured picture candidacy. If this is public domain in the United States but not in the country where it was taken, then it ought to be hosted on en:wiki rather than Commons. I'd gladly help promote it there (although a little restoration would be good), but I can't endorse the nomination at this site. Durova (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is a photograph by the photographer Philippe Halsman, who died in 1979. According to most laws on copyright, this work will become PD 70 years after his dead, i.e. 2049. Till then, reproducing this picture without consent of his heirs is a copyright violation. This document must, unfortunately, be deleted from Commons, unless the copyright question is thoroughly settled. -- MJJR (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) According to the US law, this is PD if copyright has not been renewed and the work has been published. This is not the famous known picture but a raw attempt (threads are visible). The notice says publication occurs “circa 1948”. But for this attempt, when and where exactly ? Copyright deposit is not publication. Could the real sources be mentioned ? If publication is missing, this delivery made by Congress Library is just a robbery. If not published, PD occurs 70 years after author's death.
2) By now, general international rule about author's rights is the Convention of Bern and the USA are part of it now (after a long time when considering art works as commercial products they didn't want to join it). This convention gives rights to authors, whatever their nationality and the place of creation. Thus an american work is protected in Germany by german laws. Many countries never recognised for themselves and for the author's works the former copyright system of the USA and the shorter term has nothing to do with that. So you have to check if protection is delayed according to the Bern convention. And if you can prove it, change the tag. Otherwise uploading this picture in other countries than the USA is prosecutable. It would be awkward for a FP !
3) This photograph shows two paintings of Salvador Dali whose representation is not free and is protected 70 years long after Dali's death.
--B.navez (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. : why is the copyright tag of this picture, the one published in Time magazine, so different ??
How about a movie of them when the vacuum sweeper is being used then? -- carol (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That what happened in Zimbabwe recently too. Opponents have no rights. Why? Because they are wrong. Why are they wrong ? Because we are right. Why are you right ? Because we are not wrong. What are your grounds ? Not to be wrong. And more ? Do you want to go inside the vacuum cleaner ? --B.navez (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your unqualified political comparisons in check. Discussions about the copyright status do not belong on FPC and speculative copyright-based opposes should be ignored. I don't think the "cruelty to animals" opposes should be ignored even if I think they're silly for a picture that has been under public scrutiny for 60 years. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Salvador_Dali_A_(Dali_Atomicus)_09633u.jpg&oldid=13717595"