Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galaxy (Barbara Nanning).jpg

This image infringes the copyright of the living artist. FOP in the Netherlands explicitly does not include museums.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uploaded undisputed alternative (provided by the museum under CC BY-SA 3.0) here: File:Galaxy MPH 2005-042 01.jpg. Whaledad (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not obvious to me that the artist approved the license of the photo on the museum site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go to the picture's page, click on "Auteursrecht" (bottom left), read that page, then click on "Creative Commons" (bottom of left column). Any more questions? Whaledad (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your pointer, but I already referred to the license on the museum site. Yes, it has a license, just like the photo by Mdd. The remaining question is the same in both cases: did the artist give permission? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a BIG difference of course. For the newly uploaded picture it is the museum that publishes the picture under CC BY-SA 3.0. Are you telling me there is any likelihood that the museum publishes these pictures with that license without permission from the artist? Feel free to NfD the newly uploaded picture if you will. Whaledad (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Picasso 4382.jpg where the museum had even sent specific permission via the OTRS system. So that is what Mdd could have done, fix an OTRS ticket, and it is likely to survive a DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Delete You're right: it is what he could have done, and should have done, but what he didn't do. The 7 days are now up and without OTRS ticket the picture will be deleted. I simply provided a safe, documented alternative, which is even a better picture (not taken with a smartphone). So, what is your problem here? Again, if you have your doubts around the new picture, by all means, NfD it. Whaledad (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess I didn't completely understand the discussion here until just now: The File:Galaxy MPH 2005-042 01.jpg is disputed as well, but a Commons:Deletion requests hasn't been started yet. Because I didn't understand until that until now, I just uploaded two more images of Wietske van Leeuwen from the same source. File:Groene glasschaal (1997).jpg and File:Terrine met deksel (1997).jpg

• Now what I can do is contact Wietske van Leeuwen again and ask here to send permission to the OTRS system for the release of both images here. And I can contact Barbara Nanning (if Whaledad approves) and ask here the same for both of here images, disputed here? -- Mdd (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mdd: I have no doubts as to the copyright status of the picture I uploaded. Pieter expresses doubts here, but has not filed a NfD. If you contact Barbara anyway, feel free to also include the picture I uploaded, just to satisfy Pieter. On the two new pictures (Wietske): the picture I uploaded was clearly marked "Eigenaar: Vereniging van Vrienden Keramiekmuseum Princessehof". This was not the case for the 2 pictures you uploaded (so in both cases your remark on the picture page "Picture: Vereniging van Vrienden Keramiekmuseum Princessehof" may well be incorrect). I have a suspicion that both those pictures may fall under the disclaimer on this page, in that the museum isn't sure who owns the picture. Just to make sure, you may want to contact the museum on this. Because even if Wietske would OTRS for the sculpture (which again, I don't think necessary because the museum has a clear CC BY-NA 3.0 statement), you would still need to make sure who the owner of the picture is. Whaledad (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have contacted Barbara Nanning to ask her permission. -- Mdd (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a response that she is ok with it (with both images). I will work on the OTRS conformation. -- Mdd (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has risen some doubts here: It doesn't seem right that we contact the artist/designer independent from the museum which has already released the image. I will make some further inquiries (with OTRS people, Wikimedia Netherlands free publicity project, and perhaps the museum) which could take a couple of days/weeks. I will get back on this, if I have some answers. -- Mdd (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note sure exactly where this doubt is coming from and what you plan to do. My current understanding:

1. File:Galaxy_(Barbara_Nanning).jpg is not properly marked up in the system. You now have verbal approval from the artists and have started work on getting this confirmed in an OTRS ticket. Correct?
2. File:Galaxy MPH 2005-042 01.jpg is properly marked up in the system, appears to have the proper release from the museum on their website, which most of us read as to include permission by the artist. Pieter Kuiper has cast doubt on this, and you agreed with this doubt and have asked the artist if she agreed to that picture being on Commons as well, and she confirmed that. You planned to work on an OTRS ticket for this image too (to confirm what most of us already understood), but now....

And this is where you lost me. Whaledad (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you lost me here as well. What system are you refering to? Why is the first not properly marked up and the second is? There are several differences between the two images:

• The first is made by an independent photographer Dutch Esther Westerveld released at Flickr under CC BY 2.0.
• The second is released by the Keramiekmuseum Princessehof at their website under CC BY-SA 3.0

Now there are several questions.

1. First a minor one: Where did you, Whaledad, got the idea here that the photograph is by the Vereniging van Vrienden Keramiekmuseum Princessehof? The source info states that, if I am not mistaken, the Vereniging is the owner of the sculpture and not the picture.
2. The mayor question here is whether or not these applied art objects are matter of copyright themselves or not.
3. Also does the exception in the "gebruikersvoorwaarden" (see here) "Tenzij anders vermeld is op deze website geldt de Creative Commons Licentie Naamsvermelding / Gelijk delen van toepassing" implies that the museum is already in the position to release the images, and we don't have to contact the artists ourselves.
4. And there is a OTRS system/Wikicommons matter whether or not we want to take all precaution here. We could choose to respect the "gebruikersvoorwaarden" of the museum. If the artist has second thoughts, we could still remove the image, stating we respected the conditions(gebruikersvoorwaarden) of the Keramiekmuseum Princessehof.

Now maybe you, Whaledad, already gave your answer to the last two questions, with your statement "the image is properly marked up in the system". Well, I can life with that. That means I only have to ask Barbara Nanning permission for the first image. And I don't have to ask Wietske van Leeuwen for here OTRS permission about her two (new) pictures. -- Mdd (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To get a solution on short notice, I have asked Barbara Nanning to send her permission anyway, which she did (sse below). This deletion requests can be closed. -- Mdd (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have received permission by the artist to use this image, and therefor to use the piece of art in this particular image. The image itself has sufficient licence on the website Flickr. All can be look up in OTRS ticket #2012021010007028 Edoderoo (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn by nom after OTRS permission has been received.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]