Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Urban Light

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.

Files in Category:Urban Light

This is a copyrighted assemblage artwork by artist w:en:Chris Burden. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architecture. This was the subject of a lawsuit filed by the estate of Burden against an Indonesian theme park, with the trial held in Indonesia, over an Indonesian copycat/imitation (Love Light) installed in the said theme park. The case concluded in 2021 that the copycat did infringed Burden's copyright, and the Indonesian court ordered the theme park to dismantle their copycat and pay Rp1,000,000,000 (US$69,000) to the estate of the artist of Urban Light. (Asia IP law article, Managing IP article).

Since the case concluded in favor of the heirs of sculptor, it is safe to say that this light assemblage is an artwork worthy of copyright protection despite its seemingly ordinary appearance.

Prior Commons deletion requests

1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with urban light
2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Urban Light

• File:Burden-Lacma (cropped).jpg
• File:Burden-Lacma.jpg
• File:Lacma Lights (164498407).jpeg
• File:LACMA Lights (29872128135).jpg
• File:Lacma Urban Lights (223136873).jpeg
• File:Lights To Guide You (85405281).jpeg
• File:Los Angeles County Museum of Art in California LCCN2013632510.jpg
• File:Los Angeles County Museum of Art in California LCCN2013632510.tif
• File:Los Angeles County Museum of Art in California LCCN2013632512.tif

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete, the result of an Indonesian court case is unlikely to have any bearing on an American work located in California. However, I see no reason to change the results of the earlier deletion requests. There is a real risk that this is a copyrightable artwork. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep, now if I assemble a bunch of urban lights it's under copyright? Are you thinking about that?

Moreover, some of the photos as:

File:Lacma Lights (164498407).jpeg

Could be anywhere, this is a case of lack of originality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo.Argenton (talk • contribs) 05:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC+8)

• The assemblage, the layouting of dozens of lights, is intricate. Plus it is a notable work of art by a notable American artist. It cannot be simply dismissed as lacking originality: one can notice the perfection of Burden's output in his artwork which is entitled Urban Light. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: a local image exists under fair use (as a copyrighted artwork) at w:en:File:Urban Light at night.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete, as the uploader of Los Angeles County Museum of Art in California LCCN2013632510.jpg in the list above. However, just for the record, I believe it's possible some photos featuring Urban Light may be within a de minimis exception. Photos of Urban Light as the primary subject are strictly out, but wide panoramic photos of the LACMA landscape incidentally featuring Urban Light seem more likely to be exempt as a de minimis inclusion. I don't know where I'd draw that line exactly, although imo none of the images listed above would meet a de minimis standard. The "LCCN2013632510" photo I uploaded shows Urban Light taking up almost half the frame, which to me seems too prominent to qualify as de minimis. Blz 2049 (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Blz 2049: COM:DM United States is not based incidental concept as it is in several European nations, but "triviality" which is more narrower. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @JWilz12345: Precisely—I agree with you that the de minimis standard is a high bar, and that none of the photos above clear it. I'm merely commenting on the possibility of a genuine de minimis usage in general, given that other photos taken at LACMA or its surrounding area may feature Urban Light in genuinely de minimis manners. Blz 2049 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, so this is no freedom of panorama in the US, including this structure was completed in 2008 and it's under copyright. Xasley 12:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete No COM:FOP USA for art and sculpture, only for "buildings". -M.nelson (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)