Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banksy in London

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.

Files in Category:Banksy in London

[edit]

This nomination arises from a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mumia graffiti.jpg where it was noted that nothing in the United Kingdom's Freedom of Panorama provisions appears to apply to painted works of art (including graffiti) on the exterior of buildings. The photographs included in this nomination were all taken in London and depict public-facing artwork, allegedly by Banksy. Banksy presumably retains the copyright to his artwork, and so the photographs are derivative works. Unless we can establish with certainty that Banksy is the author of the paintings and has released them under a Commons-compatible free licence, or that the UK's Freedom of Panorama applies in these cases, then we must consider these photographs to be non-free and therefore unsuitable for hosting on Commons.

Psychonaut (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment For reference one of the previous deletion requests considering these images: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Banksy She Walks In Beauty Like The Night.jpg. The decision to keep that image was based upon COM:CB#Graffiti which was at the time backed up by MichaelMaggs who is an expert to UK copyright law. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that casebook entry reads the same now as it did then, then I'm surprised that it was invoked as justification for keeping that image. Nothing in that casebook entry suggests that photographs of UK graffiti are appropriate for hosting here; on the contrary, it states quite clearly that copyright rests with the original artist. It does mention that the artist may have practical difficulties enforcing his copyright, but that's no reason for us to violate it. This largely irrelevant enforceability issue doesn't even apply to most of the images in this nomination anyway, since most or all of them are generally agreed to be the work of a known artist. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the original wording by MichaelMaggs and this the associated discussion. The key point is whether these graffiti are illegal or not. If they are legal, then they count as murals and are to be deleted as murals are not covered by freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom. However, if they are illegal, as most graffiti are assumed to be, it was so far common practice at Commons to keep them independent from whether they are eligible for copyright or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how whether the paintings are illegal is a "key point". Could you clarify? The post you linked to makes it clear that the paintings are under copyright, whether or not they were produced illegally. The wording, then and now, says only that hosting illegal artwork here "has long been allowed"; it does not make any statement that this practice is legal, ethical, or a good idea, or that it ought to be continued. If there is any implication to be read into it, it would be that the practice has been tolerated only because of the unlikelihood of getting caught. —Psychonaut (talk)
The question whether a graffiti is legal or illegal was so far per COM:CB#Graffiti and previous consensus used to decide whether we delete or keep a graffiti. This is not a question of getting caught or not (which is not permitted per COM:PRP) but in case of an illegal graffiti a case where the creator has already decided against a possible copyright enforcement. Otherwise, if the illegal graffiti artist would chose to enforce his right as copyright holder, he would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party (quote from the COM:CB page). --AFBorchert (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I for one think its utterly ridiculous to assume that graffiti can be copyrighted, considering that though some are protected by the local government after the fact, they are all done on publicly viewable structures that do not belong to the artist, with no copyright notice, and most importantly, they are illegal (see [1]). Heck, Banksy's works are routinely being carted off and sold by the people who own the actual property, and he receives nothing from them.
Nonetheless, I don't care that much, despite the effort I went through to find, upload, caption, categorize, and add them to articles. And I won't join the discussion. This seems more like the usual pointless bureaucratic wikilawyering exercises that has no chance of being resolved unless all governments in the world finally decide to mention it with extremely specific wording in a constitutional amendment following a large public outcry at the lack of such a law, which will happen right after pigs are introduced to the joys of self-powered flight.--Obsidi♠nSoul 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a work is created illegally has no bearing on its copyrightability. Much of the world's most famous and appreciated artwork, literature, and music was created illegally, and yet copyright persists in it. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding this, SilkTork. I cannot read the first link but the second link refers to a case of the Tats Cru group which creates legal graffiti. These legal graffiti count as regular murals and are deleted like in this legal graffiti case. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is to Graffiti Art Styles by Lisa Gottlieb in which she says she decided not to use images of graffiti in her book because of concerns about being sued because another author had been sued after using such images, believing that "the murals were in a public place" and so were covered by fair use. From your comment, and the author's use of the word "murals", it seems likely that it was legal graffiti rather than the illegal graffiti of Banksy. SilkTork (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - "Banksy has a casual attitude to copyright"[2] and already discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Banksy graffiti // Liftarn (talk)

 Keep - I agree with Liftarn: this topic has been discused before and there is no need for a renewed discussion. Funny discussion to talk about copyright protection for a work by somebody who has illegally painted something in public space, while keeping his or her identity hidden. Boberger (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My interpretation is that these works are created without intent to control their copyright. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per snowmanradio. Jeblad (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 01:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Banksy_in_London&oldid=518266805"