Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statues of Liberty at New York-New York Hotel and Casino

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion debate 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:Statues of Liberty at New York-New York Hotel and Casino[edit]

The statue, despite a replica of a public domain object, has its own copyright (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Liberty Statue (New York, New York hotel)). Registration Nos. VAu001149387 and VA0001882070 (at U.S. Copyright Office). Elcobbola on that DR also mentioned a one famous case of lawsuit over the free, for profit use of images of this statue, and the violator was U.S. Postal Service. [1] and [2]. Unless the United States changes (amends) their copyright law to finally include 3D artistic works (sculptures, statues, and monuments) on their freedom of panorama provision (see COM:FOP US - FOP is for architecture only), images of this copyrighted statue cannot be hosted here.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - The Statue of Liberty, in New York City, was installed in 1876. It was a larger copy of a French statue. So, copyright expired. Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the Statue of Liberty, it is a statue of the Statue of Liberty. Whilst the large one is clearly PD, this is a separate matter. Does a 3D representation of a PD statue attract additional copyright protection, and are these images breaching it?
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I would still keep this, but on the basis that FoP permits photography of it, as merely a copy of the large statue, rather than the 3D artistic creation it would need to be to be outside US FoP. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I'm confused, as stated above the United States does not have Freedom of Panorama for something that is not a building. (Maybe there is a nuance I'm missing?) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan and Andy Dingley: in your opinion, do you think that all files deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Liberty Statue (New York, New York hotel) should be restored? On the basis that this is a mere copy of Statue of Liberty (despite an existing case against U.S. Postal Service by the sculptor himself, pls. see https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/artist_sues_us_over_statue_of_liberty_stamp_says_it_depicts_vegas_sculpture). Anyway, are there any update on that case in which the sculptor's camp lost in the legal battle against the reuser of his copyrighted replica of Statue of Liberty? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two other DR's I found on the same statue are: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statue of Liberty New York Las Vegas.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:NY NY Vegas.JPG, both resulted to deletion. 14:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
They stand or fall together. It's way above my pay grade to decide whether the Davidson case (was there a result?) should sway us, on the basis that "Someone might sue us, even with a weak case" - for that is after all, The Great American Way. That's not a great article, because it conflates the Gaylord case, when that was a strong case.
For Davidson, the PO's defence began on the basis of their ignorance as to which statue it was, having purchased blind from a photo library. Now that's famously "not a defence", but it does weaken Davidson's initial claim that his work is so distinct that, "These same marked distinction caused the USPS to purchase...". If he'd made a distinct parody (of which there are a myriad) and the USPS had chosen the parody for its parody value, then he'd have a clear case. Yet here, they're so indistinguishable that the USPS couldn't tell them apart. His claim of being more "sultry" and "sexy" is unfounded, but could have made for some interesting expert witness testimony at trial.
We're not here to judge lawsuits though. At that point, we have COM:PRP (although Commons ignores that if the photographer can't afford to sue). If you want to delete on that basis, then fine - that's Commons policy.
My main point is merely that Geo Swan seemed to have misread the nominations, and mistaken them as relating to the original large NY statue. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jameslwoodward, Multichill, Elcobbola, Josve05a, George Ho, Graeme Bartlett, Natuur12, and Peteforsyth: I've paged all participants of the three older DRs of the same subject, for more thorough discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The english wikipedia, and its sibling projects, are 20 years old now. And a highly unfortunate trend is that some of us take the precautionary principle and twist it to bizarre and laughable extremes. We have our own hothouse discussion fora, and bizarre interpretations come to seem almost normal, logical.
We should not take the precautionary principle to bizarre extremes. I'll offer a couple of examples.
In general I see areas where WMF projects wander farther and farther into bizarre and unsupportable reasoning, and this may be another instance. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me what seems “bizarre and unsupportable” is the registration of copyrights on a replica, but unless or until that’s negated by a court decision or similar higher authority, we have to live with it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has a copyright been registered here? (and does that matter). Clearly one has been claimed, but registration is another step. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: two registration numbers are given by the nom at the top of this DR. I haven’t looked them up myself.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I don't see how those images of the replica statue should be treated differently from other deleted photos. There's nothing extreme about US sculptures having copyright as Geo Swan claimed. If someone here doesn't like how law functions, how about campaigning as a US Congress representative or senator? George Ho (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a model, it's an advert. User:Elcobbola/Models is bizarre. It tries to attract copyright protection by arguing that such protection is specifically excluded for a group of utilitarian objects, then jumps through hoops to exclude certain objects from being utilitarian (and thus overall are protected). Yet the object at discussion here has a function, thus is utilitarian. But the logic of Elcobbola/Models only holds if there is no utilitarian function: an object that has both art and utility is still utilitarian, thus excluded. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I doubt it is a model. It is a Lady Liberty replica intended to attract customers to the gambling complex (some sort of advertising like Andy Dingley said). However, I doubt it is utilitarian since it serves as an aesthetic fixture in the midst of the busy Vegas Strip. Unfortunately, the fact that Mr. Davidson (the sculptor) won and the U.S. Post Office lost (as explained below) strengthens its aesthetic purpose (not for utilitarian purpose). Life's would have been easier if United States is among those (at the very least) light green (also allowing sculptures outdoors). Sad to say the copyright law only includes architecture. There was also a proposal to lobby for wider FOP in the United States during circa 2013 (see Commons:Freedom of panorama campaign), but for some reason it gradually sunk into oblivion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the opinion section of Judge Eric Bruggink:

"This is an action for copyright infringement brought by Robert Davidson, the sculptor of the Lady Liberty replica statue in front of the New York-New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, against the United States, acting through the United States Postal Service (“Postal Service,” or “USPS”). A two week trial was held in September 2017. Post-trial briefing is now complete, and post-trial argument was held on May 1, 2018. Because we find that Mr. Davidson’s work was original and because the Postal Service’s use of it was not permitted by statute, he is entitled to compensation in the amount of $3,554,946.95, plus interest."

In the conclusion section: "Plaintiff has proven its entitlement to actual damages of $3,554,946.95, plus interest. The parties are directed to consult regarding the quantum of interest and to file a joint status report on or before July 27, 2018, informing the court of their agreed-upon amount or their respective positions as to that figure."

In a nutshell, Davidson prevailed and U.S. Postal Service lost. USPS was to pay economic rights damage to the sculptor for their unauthorized use of an image of his "artistic work" — the famous Lady Liberty of "the Sin City" — in their stamps. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • $3.5 million, plus interest? Cheeses K. Reist!
How did the judge arrive at this figure?
Is there any real question the Las Vegas promoters thought they were commissioning an essentially faithful copy fo the original Statue of Liberty?
If the New York, New York Casino's contract with Davidson was for a faithful reproduction, and he collects a million dollar payday for making a copy with enough unique features to qualify for its own copyright protection, I'd like to see the Casino sue him for breach of contract, and claw every cent from him. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I don't undersatand the confusion here. It is clear that copies of art have their own copyright, whether or not the original is still under copyright. There is only one, limited, exception to that which is the Bridgeman decision. That applies only to flat photographs of flat works.Any other copy of an artwork has its own copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]