File talk:Joseph Smith first vision stained glass.jpg
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2011 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Image[edit]
You know, I'm not so sure that Image:Joseph Smith first vision stained glass.jpg is really PD. A stained glass window isn't quite 2-D art in the same way that a painting is; there is considerable art in photographing it. An alternative image we could use is Image:Joseph Smith receiving golden plates.jpg. Is there any U.S. legal precedent known on whether or not stained glass windows are considered 2-D art for the purposes of en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.?--Pharos 22:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is solid footing that this image is public domain. In Bridgeman, the court said, "The Court of Appeals affirmed a district court order compelling the defendants to cancel a recordation of copyright in the plastic reproduction on the ground that the reproduction was not "original" within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Act, holding that the requirement of originality applies to reproductions of works of art. Only "a distinguishable variation" -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original."[1]. See also the courts reasoning that the change of medium is immaterial. [2]. Finally, the source is clearly identified on commons, and no copyright is asserted by the owner to dispute its public domain status which is notable since pbs claims copyright on many of its other pages.
- Although, the wikipedia article says that the decision applies only to photos of paintings, I could find no dictum limiting the ruling to paintings. Other than the fact that paintings were at issue int he case, there is no support for such a limited reading. In fact just the opposite is true - relying on this is reasonable (and in fact preferable). FYI Corel had a Religious stained glass Photo CD (see also here) available at the time the decision was made. Trödel•talk 23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to make a plastic reproduction of this stained glass window and then argue these points you would have an argument. This IS NOT the case here. This is a completely different law and the wiki policy is pretty clear. It is alo NOT being claimed that this pertains to paintings only....but to 2 dimensional works meant to be viewed at a single angle. Photos, drawings, lithographs etc all apply. The original stained glass window is over 100 years old, but as it is not a two dimensional image, meant to be viewed from one angle, but is a glass sculpture meant to be viewed from inside and outside and designed to change in look with lighting and time of day the photograph and the claim PBS DOES make as copyright is correct. We are talking about the image of the window not the window itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book[edit]
OK. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution.
I personaly disagree with this...but it IS indeed the policy of Wikimedia Commons. I withdraw my concerns!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
