Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London

Files in Category:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London[edit]

No freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK.

17jiangz1 (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Keep these three:

I think File:Are you really surprised^ - geograph.org.uk - 1021581.jpg is well below COM:TOO: the text is short and unoriginal, and there's nothing original in the presentation.
I would also place File:Occupy Graffiti - Shoreditch, London.JPG below TOO though the text is longer.
I think File:Graffiti, Coronet St, Shoreditch, N1 - geograph.org.uk - 141919.jpg is de minimis in respect of each work: every substantial work there has been defaced by another and they're broken up by the shape of the wall so that none of the works can be perceived as a whole. I think this falls under case 3 or 5 of the table on COM:DM.

--bjh21 (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with your assessment of the first example.

For the second, per this paper on copyright of graffiti in the UK, the lettering in that example is likely copyrightable as a typeface, while "the quality of a work is not relevant for the purposes of copyright". Furthermore, the sentence is also likely copyrightable give "short “artistic” sentences can attract copyright".

With the third I agree that de minimis would likely apply, as for "complex artworks where the elements of the piece are distinct and separable", "each artist is the owner of the copyright on her own part". --17jiangz1 (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep I agree with Bjh21, this takes the interpretation of FoP far too far, and would make any documentation of such cityscapes nigh impossible. Smirkybec (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep the following, all of which are 3D works or 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship", for which there is Freedom of Panorama in the UK:

also keep

File:London skyline (292412338).jpg on the grounds (as above) of de minimis

and probably keep

File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - Jarvis, Bismillahi (13805284414).jpg in which the subject of the photo is an artist at work on a detail of his composition (the work in its entirety being considerably larger – see File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - Jarvis, Bismillahi (13804948323).jpg).

I'd have thought there might also be a case for keeping on de minimis grounds images such as File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - Donk, Mr Fahrenheit, Pure Evil, St8ment, Francisco de Pajaro, Behind the Old Blue Last (13700202845).jpg, File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - Leonard Street (13723075833).jpg and File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - Multiple Pieces on Truman Brewery's Cooperage Gate (9422228235).jpg – i.e. street views showing multiple 2D works by different artists, any one of which individually might be cropped or masked out without greatly affecting the composition. GrindtXX (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think that File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - IMG 6669 (12996605673).jpg qualifies as a 3D work or 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" as per COM:FOP UK, "hand-painted tiles" are explicitly listed as an example, not tile art in general. Tile mosaics on their own likely don't meet the test of the creator being a "craftsman", as the tiles are likely not made by the artist themself. With File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - Donk, Mr Fahrenheit, Pure Evil, St8ment, Francisco de Pajaro, Behind the Old Blue Last (13700202845).jpg, I'm not sure 'de minimis' would apply given there seems to be a more prominent work that visually acts as the subject. With File:London skyline (292412338).jpg, I doubt 'de minimis' applies as the image seems purposefully framed to include the graffiti, and not being incidental or necessary to a photo of the skyline itself. I mostly agree with your other assessments. Thanks, --17jiangz1 (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep all those listed by Bjh21 and/ or GrindtXX. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep all 3D. No possible claim of DM because those photographs are here because of the murales, and removing them would make them unusable because there are better photograps of the skyline. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Blackcat:/Sergio. Why have you deleted File:London skyline (292412338).jpg while this discussion is still in progress? You believe it doesn't meet de minimis criteria, but I and Andy Mabbett have both expressed the view that it does. The picture doesn't just depict a view of the skyline, of which there are other examples: it is actually a careful composition showing a derelict and partially demolished structure on the City fringes with the modernist skyline rising above it. The graffiti occupies considerably less than 10% of the frame, and – if it were felt to be under copyright – could easily have been cropped out without detracting significantly from the overall effect. But now other editors are in no position to judge. (PS. Just to be clear, I was not the uploader of this image, nor do I have any other personal interest in it. However, I do feel aggrieved that, purely because I highlighted it above as an image that should be kept, it has now been pre-emptively deleted.) GrindtXX (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, @GrindtXX:, you have a point. I restored it and will wait for further opinions though staying my position: that photograph has no meaning nor scope once cleaned by the DM. Anyway, I am pretty convinced that the alternative is between keep and delete, not between keep and remove DM.. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 20:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@GrindtXX: just an interrogatory suggestion: perhaps cropping away the problematic part of File:London skyline (292412338).jpg will do? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Do not close until Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Graffiti and URAA is resolved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep Most of these photos are just standard photographs of graffiti, illegal graffiti, illegal street poster art, illegal stencil graffiti, including Banksy. Act of vandalism is not copyrighted, illegal graffiti contains signatures (nicknames,tags), text, but this is not an official work of art. Excluding legal murals, all photos of illegal graffiti and illegal art installations (posters) should be kept. COM:GRAFFITI Otherwise, we can remove all graffiti pictures from Commons. See last case of Banksy, Anonymous artist loses case against greeting card firm over use of Flower Thrower mural , The Guardian, 17 September 2020. Only legal murals and legal graffiti are copyrighted in the UK. Sculptures and installations in public spaces can be photographed and published - Freedom of Panorama in the UK : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62 --Daniel Naczk (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London

Files in Category:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Navigation menu

Search