Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ekspositsioon - Tiit Pääsuke.jpg
File:Ekspositsioon - Tiit Pääsuke.jpg, not featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2021 at 17:00:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Others
Info created by Tiit Pääsuke - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Question Could we get a little backstory to this upload? e.g. Is OTRS from the photographer or from the artist? Hopefully the latter? Is there any link to a source url you could provide? — Rhododendrites talk | 17:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)- Info OTRS is from the Tartu Art Museum, that has this painting in its permanent collection and they also got permission from the artist to share all the repros under CC SA-BY 4.0 license (also permissions from private collections owners, but that would be relevant with some other paintings we now have on Commons). The museum currently has Tiit Pääsuke retrospective exhibition “Nostalgialess” (even tho that could not be visited physically at a moment due to COVID-19 restrictions). Pääsuke is considered among the leading painters in Estonia in the 1970s and 1980s. In this February he also received Lifetime Achievement Awards for Culture in Estonia. That painting is from 1982 and that period could also be considered at the height of his fame, as in the 1980s painting was still a hugely important part of the culture scene (in 1990 it lost most of its notability; i.e "death of painting" reached to Estonia). Also, there is relatively little more recent art in Commons (i.e almost nothing). Kruusamägi (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. My concern is permission from the artist to share all the repros - unless I'm mistaken, the artist would need to explicitly release the original copyright (the painting itself) in order for it to be hosted on Commons. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Legally there is no reason why should the artist give the object itself under a free license for the photography purposes. Naturally, all of it is less obvious when we are dealing with paintings, so let's just say Pääsuke is a sculptor. Should he release his sculpture under a free license, so that we may freely share images made from it -- no! (but he could still allow everyone to share the images freely nevertheless and could choose to only keep the exact shape copyrighted!). To make this example more extreme to prove the case: what if we would throw FoP into the mix? We can think of an example when one sculpture is in a country where there is FoP, and another sculpture in a country where there is none... so in one case everyone can take as many images they like and do whatever they wish with them, but with the other... not so. Stating that a sculptor should release this other 3D object under a free license so that an image could be added to Commons would be extortion and legal nonsense. That is pretty obvious I'd assume. So let us now go back to the painting. Museum ordered a photographer to take photos of every painting that was put to that exhibition, those same images were used in printed materials and the artist also agreed that the same files could be published freely. Artist could choose on what does he allow and there is no leger reason that the paintings themselves should be under CC SA-BY 4.0. Let us go back to FoP: it is clearly different if an object could be freely photographed (like in a country with FoP) or if it would itself be under a free license (so that you don't need to bother about the lack of FoP and could just as well freely 3D print sculpture shaped keyrings and stuff). (As a side notice: we don't actually have all of the exhibition images in Commons: artworks from other museums are excluded, as it was unlikely to get permission from them). Kruusamägi (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- All material on Commons must be usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose. According to COM:FOP Estonia, Estonia does not have a compatible FOP law. Because the photograph is of a copyrighted work, the copyright of the work is relevant. Without FOP, and without that copyright owner publishing the work itself with a free license, unfortunately we cannot host it, sorry. :/ On the chance that I misunderstand something, I would appreciate a second opinion. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- That specific image is under CC SA-BY 4.0. How is that not usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose? Nor is the FoP relevant with a painting (I just used this to explain the copyright, as it is important to understand that this is legally hugely different on what specifically is free and what is not... and how all of that works). You misunderstand that thing badly. Let's get back to evaluating the image. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'll explain it a bit more just to be sure, thet there is no missunderstanding. Artist holds the underlying copyright (...or the museum, depends on what is in the contract between artist and the museum... but as both agree with the exact same thing, then this detail is not relevant to us and we don't need to investigate further). Now there is a photo of that copyrighted artwork. What is relevant to us: a) if that photo could be used freely and b) if that permission is valid in the first place. We know that the artist+museum has the copyright to both the artwork itself and to the photo of it and we know that they have agreed to CC SA-BY 4.0 license for that photo. So both a and b have the answer yes. You might still worry, that "this artwork itself isn't free" and you would be right. But the thing is that this is not relevant as we are dealing with the photo and whoever wishes to use or modify this specific image, then he or she is perfectly allowed to do that. They may not have the right to take some weird angle photo or that artwork (like the backside of it) and use that specific new photo freely (as the artwork itself isn't made free), but that is totally irrelevant in the current case as this doesn't affect this image even the tiniest bit. Like if we have one image of a sculpture, then we only need to worry about it and not about if "some other image of that same sculpture (by some other photographer) would also be free". Kruusamägi (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- After your request to get back to evaluating the image, I thought I would respect that and move it to COM:OTRSN and collapse/hide this thread so as not to weigh down the review. Sorry, I did not see this last message beforehand. I may be being dense here, but I think it could use another opinion. Feel free to {{Hat}} this section if you see fit. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know on why you want to make my life that hard. I'll keep that discussion open for a moment, but that should soon yes be collapsed. Or people would just look at this wall of text and skip this image. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- If I'm wrong, I'll gladly collapse this and apologize for the waste of time. — Rhododendrites talk | 21:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know on why you want to make my life that hard. I'll keep that discussion open for a moment, but that should soon yes be collapsed. Or people would just look at this wall of text and skip this image. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- After your request to get back to evaluating the image, I thought I would respect that and move it to COM:OTRSN and collapse/hide this thread so as not to weigh down the review. Sorry, I did not see this last message beforehand. I may be being dense here, but I think it could use another opinion. Feel free to {{Hat}} this section if you see fit. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- All material on Commons must be usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose. According to COM:FOP Estonia, Estonia does not have a compatible FOP law. Because the photograph is of a copyrighted work, the copyright of the work is relevant. Without FOP, and without that copyright owner publishing the work itself with a free license, unfortunately we cannot host it, sorry. :/ On the chance that I misunderstand something, I would appreciate a second opinion. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Legally there is no reason why should the artist give the object itself under a free license for the photography purposes. Naturally, all of it is less obvious when we are dealing with paintings, so let's just say Pääsuke is a sculptor. Should he release his sculpture under a free license, so that we may freely share images made from it -- no! (but he could still allow everyone to share the images freely nevertheless and could choose to only keep the exact shape copyrighted!). To make this example more extreme to prove the case: what if we would throw FoP into the mix? We can think of an example when one sculpture is in a country where there is FoP, and another sculpture in a country where there is none... so in one case everyone can take as many images they like and do whatever they wish with them, but with the other... not so. Stating that a sculptor should release this other 3D object under a free license so that an image could be added to Commons would be extortion and legal nonsense. That is pretty obvious I'd assume. So let us now go back to the painting. Museum ordered a photographer to take photos of every painting that was put to that exhibition, those same images were used in printed materials and the artist also agreed that the same files could be published freely. Artist could choose on what does he allow and there is no leger reason that the paintings themselves should be under CC SA-BY 4.0. Let us go back to FoP: it is clearly different if an object could be freely photographed (like in a country with FoP) or if it would itself be under a free license (so that you don't need to bother about the lack of FoP and could just as well freely 3D print sculpture shaped keyrings and stuff). (As a side notice: we don't actually have all of the exhibition images in Commons: artworks from other museums are excluded, as it was unlikely to get permission from them). Kruusamägi (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. My concern is permission from the artist to share all the repros - unless I'm mistaken, the artist would need to explicitly release the original copyright (the painting itself) in order for it to be hosted on Commons. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Abstain pending resolution of licensing issue. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)- Info There isn't really a licensing issue. It is more of a misunderstanding of what is needed. The license is fine and permission is fixed. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
