Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg

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.

File:Ethiopian_Abyssinian_Church,_Jerusalem_09.jpg

[edit]

Painting from 1999. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - {{FoP-Israel}} --Yuval Y § Chat § 09:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Paintings not covered by FOP Israel as per Dr Sarah Presenti, "an artistic work created for artistic purpose is by no means applied art ( e.g. painting)". Adambro (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, per Adambro. –Tryphon☂ 10:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep for two reasons - not a painting but part of a church permenant decoration - like a mural - both useful art and architectural, and falls undisputedly under Section 23 of the Law. Kuiper as always is clueless. Presanti in the above quote was not refaring to this at all and was not asked on this. Deror avi (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you assist in understanding what means this can't be described as a painting and instead makes it architecture? Adambro (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 3#Answer from Sarah Presenti, where Sarah Presenti answered my question about photos of paintings. (She wrote that the Israeli lawyer was clueless...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kuiper - Let me put this bluntly - I don't trust you to have represented the facts right to Presenti. She refers to work in museums, and not to paintigings in General. I don't even trust you to quote her properly given your reputation her. Her other emails (which you ignore) state otherwise. Deror avi (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well what can I say except advise readers to be skeptical of anything written by Deror avi. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unfortunate that Deror feels that way but the comments that Pieter says are from Presenti do fit with those emails directly from her which are archived in OTRS. She said "As for applied art or useful art, It does not matter if it is 2D or 3D as long as it is a work of art that is meant to deliver useful information. Therefore, an artistic work created for artistc purpose is by no means applied art ( e.g. painting)." That seems pretty definitive. Adambro (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep DMY (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain why. This isn't simply a vote. Adambro (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The is an Icon, in the religious sense of the word. It is publicly situated in a church for the purpose of being "treated as a sacred object of veneration or worship". It is a piece of Applied Art through and through, and not a work for artistic purposes. Therefore a photo of the icon is not protected under Israeli Copyright Law (Sec. 23), in the same way that a photo of a religious icon displayed in public would not be protected in England, Canada, Australia, Germany, and many other civilized countries in the world. (See also, Orit Fischman Afori, The Derivative Work in The Law of Copyright. Israel, Nevo, 2005. p. 388)Oyoyoy (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    and again, why? Adambro (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you for providing a more detail reasoning for keeping this file. Why do you say it is applied art though? Dr Sarah Presenti has said "an artistic work created for artistic purpose is by no means applied art ( e.g. painting)". That would seem relevant here. Also, section 23 makes no mention of "icons". Can you refer to a particular section of the legislation which would mean that the painting isn't protected by copyright and so a photo like this would be permitted? Adambro (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oyoyoy: Photos of icons in England do get deleted on commons, unless it can be shown that the painting is old (example). This Abyssinian painting does not look like an object of veneration anyway. It is dated, next to what looks like the signature of an artist, and its prime function seems to be artistic, beautifying the interior of the church. But please tell us exactly what it says in that book; Afori told Knesset members that something like this would not be in the category of applied art, see references given here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of questions. Let me try and answer them:
  1. Why is it applied art? Exactly because it is not "an artistic work created for artistic purpose." It is an artistic work much like Philippe Starck's lemon squeezer. While Starck's art work is for the purpose of squeezing lemons, this painting is for the purpose of worship and veneration. Starck made a kitchen tool, the artist in our case, made a religious object. (This comparison is solely for the purpose of explaining the term Applied Art, and I do not mean to belittle the importance of religious objects in any way).
  2. Section 23 does not make mention of lemon squeezers, nor does any other section of the Israeli Copyright Law. Does that mean that taking a photo of Starck's lemon squeezer infringes on the artist's copyrights? No.
  3. Sadly, the fact that certain photos get deleted on commons (or on Hebrew Wikipedia for that matter) doesn't attest to any accepted, or existing, legal norm.
  4. Peter, why doesn't this painting look like an object of veneration to you? How many Abyssinian Churches have you visited? On the other hand, I'm sure you saw many paintings in the Rijksmuseum standing on the floor, partially clad in crimson curtains, and a vase with fresh flowers beside them. And all of this just for the sake of art.
  5. Why does the artist's signature, or the date of the work, contradict the claim that it is a religious object? Where does it say that a religious object cannot be contemporary, or signed?
  6. I'm not sure that the Afori that appeared before the Knesset committee was the author of the book I referred to. I'll try to bring a full translation of the relevant section of the book later this week. Oyoyoy (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That should be the same Tamir Afori. How are you doing on giving a relevant quote in English translation? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not the same person, this is Orit Fishman Afori. Among many other things, she writes: "The standing of objects of "Applied Art", objects of art that are at the same time also useful-functional objects, is the source of many questions. Courts and legal scholars have dealt in length with the fact that the functional elements of the work are unprotected..." She does not exclude the possibility that a religious object may fall into this category, in the manner I explained above.
While at the library, I also took a peek at Presenti's book and surely she did not clarify in her book, what evidently she wrote in a letter to Pieter. On page 1214 she writes: "According to sec. 23 of the 2007 law (quoting the sec. in full)... making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs, including architectural drawings of any work of art, situated in public places, is permitted. I.e., buildings, monuments, works of applied art, etc..."Oyoyoy (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the Aforis are a married couple :) Your saying that Orit "does not exclude" is not an argument. The problems that she refers to is the separation of functional and artistic elements of objects like nutcrackers, furniture and bottles. A en:placemat has a functional element. But if you want to argue that a painting like this one can have functional elements that would make it belong to the category of applied art, you will need to do better than "Orit does not exclude". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you will need to do better than "Orit does not exclude"...

?!. Pieter, we never had an argument before, so excuse me if I didn't know that you are the one issuing judicial dictum here. FYI, Israeli law follows the English Law tradition, which states: "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" (unlike the Roman Law tradition). I am satisfied with my examination of this matter. If you have any information why publishing this photo contradicts Israeli copyright law, please present it. Your reference to Dr. Presenti's answer will not do in this case. As she wrote to you: "...since paintings do not fall normally under the above category of works". But this is NOT your typical painting, made for the sake of art, hanging on a museum wall for viewer enjoyment. This is first and foremost a religious object, i.e. applied art, as I explained above. Certainly, if you can find a court rulling that a religious object cannot belong to the category of applied art, I will withdraw my objection to this deletion. My search in Israeli case law revealed that there is no such rulling.Oyoyoy (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every artistic work is protected by copyright unless there is an exemption. The exemption of article 23 of the Israeli copyright law for some categories of permanently situate works does not extend to paintings. The burden of proof is on those who argue that this work would not be protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From where do you deduce that "The exemption of article 23... does not extend to paintings."? This is not determined in law, or in any Israeli court case as far as I checked. It not in Presenti's book, or in her short note to you! It is not mentioned in any other legal textbook that I have read. You surely agree that saying "X is normaly not Y" (As Presenti writes to you), does not mean "If Y then not X".Oyoyoy (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presenti said "an artistic work created for artistic purpose is by no means applied art ( e.g. painting)". She also makes no distinction between the terms applied/useful art. Therefore, Presenti has implied that a painting is not covered by Section 23 unless this could be described as "an architectural work [or] a work of sculpture". Clearly a painting isn't a sculpture, and nor is it an architectural work. Adambro (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much question any suggestion that any religious significance could turn a painting into a work of applied art. Under that argument, no painting would be protected by law since anyone can claim something has a religious significance. Also, reading w:Applied art, I come to the same conclusion. It says that "fine arts serve as intellectual stimulation to the viewer" whereas applied art is to "incorporate design and creative ideals to objects of utility, such as a cup, magazine or decorative park bench". I just don't see how from that any religious significance would make a painting applied art. Adambro (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a reference to the quote from Presenti. As for the rest, you don't have to repeat your argument, and the brilliant insight that a painting is not a sculpture doesn't help any. Please read my reply at #1 above.Oyoyoy (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was from an email sent to OTRS. It can be seen here. I've got OTRS access so found the email from her and copied its contents to Commons per her wishes. Adambro (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This doesn't help any. Presenti didn't mean to claim that by definition: A painting is "an artistic work created for artistic purpose". Simply put, If it is a painting then it must be a work created for artistic purpose. (This is total nonsense).
To know what a painting is, and the fact that a painting is not always made for the sake of art, you don't need Presenti (she phrases this more precisely in her note to Pieter, using the term "normally"). Look at this beautiful painting by Dürer, out of a letter he wrote to his teacher (and read the inscription above). This is applied art at its best, and a masterful painting at the same time.Oyoyoy (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a lot that would support your suggestion that this painting could be described as applied art. This, this, this and this all provide definitions of applied art which I feel would exclude paintings, regardless of any religious significance. Can you point to any definitions which might include paintings? Adambro (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to point to any other definition. It is enough to read these definitions carefully.Oyoyoy (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, please explain with reference to those definitions how they would include paintings in their defition of "applied art". Adambro (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of explanations, and spoon feeding isn't one of my hobbies. If you didn't understand so far, either you never truly read any of my explanations above, or chances are that you'll never understand. Do as you wish.Oyoyoy (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oyoyoy is also an Israeli Lawyer, and he, as I understand the Law to allow the photography of such images as their has useful objective, other then mere artistic sake. If our opinion is not sufficient, I suggest that we await Dr. Presanti's answer - I have sent her en email requesting her to answer this question. Deror avi (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is reasonable for us to consult Presanti on every deletion request. Whilst her assistance is very much appreciated and I will be interested in what she has to say here, I would assume she has to make a living and that means we can't expect her to be always providing free legal advice. However, if users wish to do so, it would be preferable if the exact query to put to Presanti was discussed to avoid the risk that some in the community might be unhappy with what has been asked, making it necessary to go back to Presanti again. Deror avi, as per previously, if you could forward your correspondence with Presanti to be archived in OTRS or ask her to CC in OTRS it would be helpful to avoid others making accusations like you have doubting what has been said.
Deror avi, you seem unhappy that some have yet to be convinced by your argument that this image can be kept. Perhaps you shouldn't be surprised when your suggestion that this can be described as an architectural work seems somewhat strange. How is a painting leaning up against a wall an architectural work? Also, the suggestion that a painting alone can be a applied/useful artwork seems strange. With regards to that, it would be helpful if you or anyone else could point to anything which means that something with an apparent religious significance can be described as useful/applied artwork. As both yourself and Oyoyoy are lawyers, I would have thought you could understand that making an assertion about something is unlikely to be satisfactory, you have to try to show that your assertion is correct. So far I don't think that has really been done. Adambro (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment For the benefit of anyone else wondering, yes this issue has been raised elsewhere, specifically here. That might explain some of the brief "keep" votes. Adambro (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment the talk there is a suggestion that Israeli users should stop using the commons alltogether, and start uploading free images only to Hebrew wikipedia. Its a choise a comunity can make. So far the decision is not to follow that path. Deror avi (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The argument "this painting is for the purpose of worship and veneration." is rather interessting. If we can keep images because the object has some sort of purpose perhaps we could say that works of art also has a purpose. It is supposed to bring joy to the eye or what ever we can think of. Would be nice if we could keep paintings etc. with that argument. --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comment unfortunately represents a misunderstanding of the term "Applied Art" (as opposed "Art" in general, for which the exception is not made). Reading the short article Applied Art may help to clarify the confusion.Oyoyoy (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps but "objects of function and everyday use" is not a clear "definition". The article even mention magazines, film posters and advertisements but that does not mean that we can start hosting images of magazines or film posters on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli Courts has ruled that posters and commercials hung in the streets are "אמנות שימושית", therefore, according to Israeli Law - if permenantly based in a public location - are FOP in Israel. Deror avi (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I admit that I have no idea of the FOP in Israel (and only limited of FOP elsewhere), but I think this form of Icons can be kept as "applied art" - the artist is not inventing anything, but reproducing, and the purpose of the art is "worship" (hope my english is good enough) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, this painting is an "artistic work created for artistic purposes" (similar to a Rubens painting) and is thus not applied art. Kameraad Pjotr 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ethiopian_Abyssinian_Church,_Jerusalem_09.jpg&oldid=531867512"