Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cincinnati-cincinnatus-mural.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not free. This 2-dimensional artwork depicted is copyrighted by its painter - whose identity is unclear, but most likely did not die over 70 years ago. --Evrik 04:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed.
- I think the muralist is Richard Haas.
- (As an aside, isn't it arguably a 3-dimensional piece of art?)
- —141.219.94.36 01:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. I took a picture of a building with a mural on it, with three dimensional perspective and elements not a part of the mural. Anyway, it was commissioned by Kroger, so they should own the copyright rather than Richard Haas. Nice detective work. --Tysto 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what is the line between depicting copyrighted artwork and depicting a public structure on which artwork is placed? If this photo had been taken from a greater distance, or from an oblique angle, could it be published as an encyclopedic illustration of that particular location? I can't imagine that placing a piece of art in a public space makes it impossible to publish photos of that physical space. --160.79.219.133 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you'll have to start imagining, because the US does not have freedom of panorama. Buildings themselves completed before 1990 are not protected by copyright, but a mural would be, so its inclusion would have to be de minimis. There is no clear line for that, but a good rule of thumb is that if an image could be used to illustrate an included item, the inclusion is not de minimis. This image would fail that test.
Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
