Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin)

Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin)

The artist of the characters on this mural, Hergé, died in 1983 and there's zero evidence that he created the mural or that whomever did retain the copyright for the characters since it was created in 2005. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist Teil des Parcours BD der Stadt Brüssel. Zu diesem Zweck wurde ein Herge-Motiv aus dem Band L’affaire Tournesol auf eine große Wand übertragen. Diese Arbeit wurde von Art Mural ausgeführt. Diese letzte Aussage kann natürlich noch ergänzt werden. Aber es wäre, gelinde gesagt, seltsam, wenn so etwas ohne Rücksprache mit den Rechteinhabern gemacht worden wäre. Was die Fotos betrifft: In Belgien herrscht Panoramafreiheit. Lewenstein (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be strange, to say the least, if something like this had been done without consulting the rights holders. Why would it be strange if the mural was created without consulting the rights holders? People create murals of copyrighted characters without getting the proper permission all the time, to the point that it's actually pretty routine. Do you have a link to somewhere that discusses the copyright status of the mural or are you just speculating? Because we obviously can't host the images if there's no actual evidence and/or it's otherwise just your personal opinion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These murals are in the city center of Brussels. They are not the work of some random street graffiti artist, they are here because they were commissioned to be and the city is well aware of their existence (and so are millions of people, tourists and residents alike).
Belgium has freedom of panorama and if there was a copyright issue with these murals then it would be up to the city of Brussels to do something about it, not some Commons users.
If you suspect that the city of Brussels is guilty of improperly permitting, hosting and promoting copyrighted material then you are free to contact them and ask for clarifications, but wasting the time and energy of everyone involved with these pictures without even doing your due diligence is inappropriate imo. --Trougnouf (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, Belgium has now appropriate freedom of panorama. Second, although I have in the past argued for deleting obviously unauthorized graffiti of copyrighted characters, such as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Griffin in Hannover 2015.jpg, this is a completely different case. Actually, I have brought up these Tintin murals in that deletion request as an example of cases that aren't an issue. The Peter Griffin graffito was exactly that, roughly sprayed in an underpass amoungst other graffiti, so any kind of authorization or knowledge of the copyright owner was highly unlikely. The Tintin murals on the other hand are - as I wrote there - part of the official en:Brussels' Comic Book Route and therefore we can assume that they were made with the right owner's permission.In this case, it's highly unlikely that such an official art route by the city of Brussels would be executed without the Hergé Foundation's permission which is well known for protecting Hergé's rights rigorously. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.. It's even more unlikely that the Foundation's website would feature this mural if they had not approved it: [1]. That took a couple of minutes to find, in the most obvious place to look. So much for "zero evidence". - Davidships (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships: Maybe you can point it out but I don't see anything anywhere about the copyright status of the murals. In fact at least a few of the murals in the photographs on that website have a copyright on them and say "copyrighted Hergé." Regardless, just because someone associated with the Tintin museum takes a picture of someone else's work and puts it on their website that doesn't really mean anything about the copyright status of said work. "Oh hey, some random employee of a museum associated with Tintin took a picture of this mural while they were out for a walk. So it must be PD" clearly wouldn't hold up in court. And I don't even see an image of this particular mural on their website to begin with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try the seventh image in the link already provided. It beggars belief that the copyright owner would actively encourage the public to visit the mural if they considered it is a copyvio. That is not proof, but "evidence" it is. I am not expressing a view on whether the images should be kept or not as that seems to depend much more on the application of Belgian FOP, about which I am ignorant. - Davidships (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure specifically how Tintin.com works, but their their licensing page says "Tintinimaginatio S.A. is entrusted on an exclusive basis by La Croix de l'Aigle S.A with the exploitation of the rights relating to Hergé's work and in particular the rights of reproduction, communication, adaptation and derivative rights of Hergé's work." So there's zero evidence that Hergé's characters are licensed more generally and/or outside of their exclusive agreement with whomever owns the copyright to them at this point. Now if we had evidence that the artist of the mural was or is an employee of Tintin.com and created it on their behalf with the licensing terms granted to them by the copyright holder, cool, but I don't see any evidence of that and them reposting an image of something on their website doesn't prove anything about it either way. It's pretty clear that they are the only one's who have exclusive rights to reproduce the characters though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I second Gestumblindi here, and would even go further, as it seems to be at least disputed whether FOP requires that the original artwork was displayed with consent of the copyright holder. I am arguing that this isn't even necessary. Even if we only assume that the image must have been attached legaly to that wall (which clearly seems to be the case), that is sufficient for FOP to apply.

In particular, we do not need to know under what conditions (aka. license) the painting was made. FOP also applies if the image was intended to be displayed "for non-commercial use only". It's the very core of FOP, that whoever takes a picture of a work permanently in the public does not need to check for any kind of permission from the owner or copyright holder. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaterMcFly: Both of you seem to be misunderstanding why I nominated the images for deletion. This has nothing to do with FOP or FOP laws in Belgium. It has to do with the fact that Tintin is a copyrighted work and there's no evidence that the artist of this mural retained the rights from Hergé or his family members to reproduce it publicly or otherwise. Just like say there can generally be FOP in Belgium, but that doesn't mean I (or anyone else) can create a mural of characters from Star Wars without obtaining permission from Disney first and then upload an image of said mural to Commons as PD "because FOP." That's not how it works with derivatives. See Commons:Derivative works "if the underlying work is still copyright protected, the original copyright holder must also license the underlying work for reuse." --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you will find here in French, or here in English compelling evidences that all those comics mural painting are an official command of the City of Brussels, as indicated on their own website: The City of Brussels pays special attention to the comic book. Since the early 90s, it pays tribute to characters and authors of the Franco-Belgian comics on the walls in the Pentagon (city center) and Laeken. These murals are part of a larger project called Comic Strip Trail, organized by the City itself in coordination with right-holders. Now, please stop wasting everybody's time and let's move on. Greetings. M0tty (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree that it's a clear statement that everything is above with the mural, but I'm fine leaving it up to the closing admin to decide. That said, even if if correct none of that information was provided in the file descriptions. So the only waste of time here, if there is any, is on the people who decided to upload the images without proper attribution. It's not on me, or anyone else on here, if someone uploads an image of something they didn't create as their own work and without providing a link to the proper license. So spare me the snide comments and it take up the uploaders next time if you really care that much about it. It's not my job to parse through a bunch of random websites to figure out how something is licensed. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's not your job. It's not ours either. See my comment above for an uploader's take on your request. --Trougnouf (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the uploader's job to provide the proper licensing information. Sure, you gave your opinion about it here after the fact, but none of that was provided in the descriptions of the files you uploaded. Let alone did provide any factual information about it outside of speculation anywhere either. And 100% should have. Especially if you going to treat me like this whole was a waste of time on my end. People tend to nominate files for deletion if or when the uploader wrongly licenses something as their own work and then doesn't clarify it anywhere. That's just how this works. Sorry, but aren't here to do research or document how something is licensed on behalf of uploaders just because they can't be bothered to for whatever reason. It's your responsibility to make sure the files you upload are properly documented, sourced, attributed, and licensed. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put the cc-by-4.0 template and that's sufficient. I could have added Template:FoP-Belgium (as some people simply add to my pictures when they feel a clarification is preferred, feel free to do so, it would not bother anyone) but I didn't and I don't think that is required. Freedom of panorama applies to the public space and almost anything permanent requires approval (a permit) from the local administration, so it is safe to assume that the work is officially permitted (aka "lawfully published") and we don't need to assume guilty until proven otherwise and start our own inquisition on everything that freedom of panorama stands for. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing this for at least a couple of years, have a pretty deep understanding of the laws and policies around these things, and I'm telling you just slapping a cc-by-4.0 on the thing and calling good there isn't sufficient in this case. We'll have to disagree though. But your claim that there's no issue here because almost anything permanent requires approval (a permit) from the local administration or that this has anything to do with an inquisition of FOP just goes to show you clearly don't understand the unique issue with durative works and the reasons why I nominated these specific images for deletion. Either that or your just intentionally choosing to ignore them. Regardless, I said I'm fine leaving it to whomever closes this. So I'd appreciate it if we just left it there. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand that the local administration which issues the permits for this type of permanent artwork is the law that determines whether it was "lawfully published" or not. I'm also glad to leave this behind and I hope that you will follow the consensus and take any further FoP issues you may have up to the local authorities, so that volunteer photographers like myself can continue volunteering the time and energy they devote to Wikimedia Commons to more useful and fulfilling tasks like documenting FoP artwork. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

volunteer photographers like myself can continue volunteering the time and energy they devote to Wikimedia Commons to more useful and fulfilling tasks like documenting FoP artwork. I wish you would. This wouldn't have been a thing to begin with if you had of documented the artwork instead of just slapping a generic cc-by-4.0 on it and calling things good there. Be my guest and actually "document" things properly next time so there won't be a reason to nominated your images for deletion to begin with though. Otherwise don't be surprised if you end up in a similar situation in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could have added the FoP template but that would not have helped me, you tagged every picture of this artwork regardless. What you are asking me to do is to start an investigation into how this (and any) public artwork got approved; ask the commune for the proof they got when they approved the permit... (Or I may likely endure this again from you for any FoP work I upload.) It is entirely ridiculous and I'm starting to think that you are acting in bad faith. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking me to do is to start an investigation into how this (and any) public artwork got approved No I'm not. I asked you to properly document the artwork you upload images of. That's it. Nowhere have I said you should investigate "any" public artwork or even any images of public artwork uploaded by other people. So don't put words in my mouth or try to make this about something it isn't. Just properly document and license your uploads. I could really care less about other public art that we aren't discussing or have nothing to do with this deletion request. Again, just properly document and license your uploads. It's literally the bare minimum for files to be hosted on Commons and that's all I'm asking for here. Otherwise don't be surprised if your files get nominated for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My uploads are properly documented. I've mentioned what it is and where it is and categorized it appropriately. You made a blanket deletion request on every file in this category, I don't know what you are now calling "the basics" or "properly documenting" and you sure are pretty vague about it now but I'm pretty sure that all files in this category are not lacking proper documentation. Please do as you said by letting the admins close this discussion and leave me alone. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one seeking for problems here, everybody but you agreed on the fact that these paintings have been legally painted, by city order, in coordination with right-holders (Casterman, Dargaux, Dupuis and other big belgian comics editors included). Therefore there is no legal issues for these pictures as the right-holders have agreed for those painting to be painted and so they fall under the FOP. M0tty (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I said I was fine leaving it up to whomever closes this. Your the ones trying to turn this into a debate and treating me like I'm just an inquisition against FOP or whatever. It's not a problem to nominate badly or wrongly licensed files for deletion. The problem comes in when people decide to turn into a debate and make it into a personal thing against the nominator like you and Trougnouf have been doing instead of just making your case and moving on. I'm not here to debate this, but I have no problem responding if someone is going to be snide about it and/or treat me like I'm just on an inquisition against FOP in Belgium or whatever.

It's obvious neither one of you think it's on uploaders to do the basics, that's fine. But this is just going to be the result of your compliancy and unwillingness to do things properly. Either do things the correct way from the start, or just make your case and move on next time. Otherwise just don't upload images to Commons. It's not that difficult to properly license and document a work though. Your the only ones turning this into a problem by not just doing it to begin with. Now can we please end it there and stop beating the dead horse? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With your understanding, we would need to completely revisit the way commons handles FOP. We currently assume that when something is publicly displayed, we can take a picture and reuse it for whatever purposes. We do not, and that is the point, need to check under what conditions the object was placed in public, we do not even need to know its author/painter/artist. If I buy a sculpture of a contemporary artist, I own that sculpture but not it's copyright, but I can still place it in my frontyard, for others to see and take pictures of. If you want to challenge that view of how FOP works, I think this is the wrong place to do it, as this would need a larger community consensus and a statement from the wikimedia board. PaterMcFly (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it works with normal sculptures. We're talking about a derivative mural of otherwise copyrighted cartoon characters that wasn't created by the original artist and that we don't know the copyright status of here though. I can't just display an otherwise copyrighted movie poster in my front yard and let other people take photographs of it that they base reproductions of the original poster on without permission from the original artist. That's not how FOP works. "Well, my neighbor scanned the Star Wars poster in my front yard and FOP. So whatever! It should be fine." It's a different thing when we are talking about a derivative of a derivative of something that's copyrighted where we don't even know the chain of permission outside of the uploader claiming it's their own mural that they created when it obviously isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may delete this single file: File:Cartoon auf einer Hausfassade in Brüssel (Belgien) 5.jpg - best regards, --2003:ED:D708:759F:41B3:4A6D:AEDE:CC60 18:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Adamant1 since I find their behavior problematic and there have been previous issues specifically with regards to FoP content in Belgium (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_112#Adamant1). These issues should have stopped then and yet here we are and they threatened to do it again. --Trougnouf (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adamant, these are clearly allowed by FOP in Belgium, the photographs are taken in the environment, and the mural is not separated from its surroundings. As mentioned above, evidence suggests this mural was created with the consent of the copyright holder. Abzeronow (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: What evidence? The copyright is still held by Herges estate and no one in this DR has provided any evidence that the artist has the rights to re-create the characters. The only thing we do have is a photograph of the mural on some website. There's nothing on that website saying they created the mural or that the artist did it as an employee of theirs and with the proper license though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to close this because I'm not expert enough on Belgian copyright law, but if I understand correctly these should be fine if they are shown in context and not OK if they are cropped to just Hergé's copyrighted work. I do want to remark on one point: it seems highly probable that Hergé's estate authorized these works. Looking at https://www.tintin.com/en/news/5731/walking-around-brussels-with-tintin, it's pretty difficult to imagine his estate having ignored or tolerated a copyright violation on this scale. Some of the works even include his signature and or an explicit copyright notice worked into the piece, although admittedly this one doesn't. But I think if the rationale to delete these is based on the possibility that the mural might be an unauthorized derivative work, there is so much circumstantial evidence to the contrary that (contrary to the usual case) there would need at least some evidence of that being the case, not just the fact that it is imaginable. (And, please, if you've already said something above, no need to reiterate it in response to me. Yes, I know not everyone is in agreement.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Just to ask a question if you'll allow me, but where does your idea that TinTin.com is or has anything to do with Herges estate come from? Because from what I read it sounds like they have the exclusive rights to republish his works but the copyright is still owned by his family or whomever handles it on their behelf. I assume that wouldn't be TinTin.com though. Since republishing rights and actually owning the original copyright are two seperate things. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that at all. It simply documents that there is an enormous amount of Hergé's copyrighted work in public spaces in Brussels and, as I said, it's pretty difficult to imagine his estate having ignored or tolerated a copyright violation on this scale. Is it imaginable that one particular work was unauthorized? Yes. Is it likely? In my opinion, no. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point and it's one I don't necessarily disagree with. It's unfortunate our coworkers above decided to make it personal and beat a dead horse about it instead of just making a similar one. Otherwise I probably would have just retracted this about 10 messages ago. Oh well. Better just to throw around insults and report the nominator to ANU then make actual points I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my photo; It was my personal mistake to upload the questionable image to Commons: File:Cartoon auf einer Hausfassade in Brüssel (Belgien) 5.jpg - best regards, --2003:ED:D708:75CA:2C4B:6AE3:1A65:B0E7 07:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with your photo. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, If you want to win a commons-challenge, you obviously have to violate licenses. q.e.d. --2003:ED:D708:75CA:2C4B:6AE3:1A65:B0E7 14:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you uploaded the image it would at least help if you provided a better description and used a template specific for FOP in Belgium along with the one saying it's your own work. That goes for all the images in the DR BTW. I'm not going to go as far saying it should be a requirement for the images to be kept since there's clearly people here who can't be bothered, but it would be a huge help to avoiding similar things in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that license violations (such as here) are expressly encouraged and will be officially recognized and rewarded with cash prizes. q.e.d. - best regards, --2003:ED:D708:75CA:2C4B:6AE3:1A65:B0E7 14:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a license violation, please nominate it for deletion. Talk pages are not the right place to discuss license violations. If you think the files here should be deleted, make a comment with {{Delete}} and explain your reasoning. Consigned (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. It seems to be a reasonable assumption that the government had the copyright owners' permission to reproduce the work in public as a mural (COM:MURAL), similar to when they place a statue or another permanent piece of art. Thus, FOP prevails. Consigned (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin)

Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin)

Navigation menu

Search