File talk:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.jpg


 * Image:Chicks-from-avignon.jpg. Painted in 1907, but PD-US is determined by publication, not creation. No evidence of first publication. It's cceptable for fair use in some of the articles it's in, but needs to be removed from others, and have a rationale written. Chick Bowen 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First released to critics at an art exhibit in 1916. That should satisfy your bloodlust. Nardman1 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Display is not publication, sorry. Publication legally means the distribution of multiple copies; see s:Copyright Act of 1976. And there's no need to question my motives; I'm just trying to get it right. Chick Bowen 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Demoiselles d’Avignon was first reproduced in the Architectural Record of May 1910. If that is insufficient, I think this is a excellent candidate for the fair use art tag. Another image of Demoiselles d’Avignon on WP (Image:Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon.jpg) took that approach. Picasso's estate is notoriously litigious, so a decent fair use claim is likely to be safer than attempting to claim it's in the public domain. —RP88 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good research, but I'm afraid that it may not be good enough. The reproduction in the Architectural Record was labelled as a "Study". The Picasso estate has filed "Notices of Intent to Enforce" (NIEs) at the U.S. Copyright Office for three studies on "Demoiselles d'Avignon" and on the final painting itself. These NIEs enable them to enforce their copyrights in the U.S., which apparently were restored under the URAA. Assume all Picasso paintings are copyrighted. Lupo 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the uploader, but per the discussion here, I've switched the license from PD to Fair Use and made a fair use claim for the articles for which I believe it is acceptable for fair use. —RP88 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed Image:Chicks-from-avignon.jpg from the remaining pages on which it appeared in which no reasonable fair use claim could be made. —RP88 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2008 renewal of discussion


This previous judgment seems to be based entirely on the fact that the image in the architectural record is labeled a "study". This may or may not be true- if you look at it, it seems to be identical to the painting (besides being black and white). While many studies were made for the painting, the reproduction in the architectural record resembles the current painting more closely than it does any of them. I say this because a high-resolution file has recently been uploaded by a well-meaning user.  Litho  derm  05:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, let's resolve which image was published in the Architectural Record article, "The Wild Men of Paris", in May 1910. Multiple sources attest that it was in fact the painting, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.


 * The original article can be found online on the Architectural Record web site:
 * "'The Wild Men of Paris' is reproduced here exactly as it appeared in RECORD, with archaic spellings and strange copyediting mistakes (Debusy instead of Debussy?) intact."
 * The image in question is on the second page, where it is labelled, "Study by Picasso".


 * The Art Bulletin says it was the painting that was reproduced. Anna C. Chave, The Art Bulletin, December 1994:
 * 5. Les Demoiselles was first reproduced in the Architectural Record of May 1910.


 * This is also stated by Nicholas Sawicki, Inheriting Cubism: The Impact of Cubism on American Art, 1909-1938, p. 119:
 * By 1909, we read, Weber “had already begun to assimilate the influence of Picasso,” and “in all likelihood” had seen two important paintings in Picasso’s studio, then largely unknown: the Demoiselles d’Avignon and Three Women.1 The artist Morgan Russell certainly had occasion to view the latter painting at the Paris apartment of Gertrude Stein, who owned it with her brother Leo, and he made a sketch of it, too, an intrepid and careful study dating to 1911 (Fig. 19). It is not clear, however, that Weber himself actually saw canonical paintings such as these first-hand, or simply knew them from reproduction. Both appeared in Gelett Burgess’s article “The Wild Men of Paris,” which was published in the Architectural Record in 1910


 * Christopher Butler, Early Modernism: Literature, Music, and Painting in Europe, 1900-1916, Oxford University Press, 1994. ISBN 019818252X, 9780198182528:
 * 61. It was seen by the public in two fugitive reproductions (in The Architectural Review of May 1910 and in the Review surrealiste, 4, of 15 July 1925), and exhibited in 1916, and then 1937.


 * Wayne Andersen, Picasso's Brothel: Les Demoiselles D'Avignon, Other Press, LLC, 2002. ISBN 1892746921, 9781892746924:
 * Page 30: I will try to neutralise the Brothel's imagery in advance of recharging it. The titillating nickname Les Demoiselles d'Avignon will be suppressed in my text. Picasso said that its title was The Avignon Brothel .
 * Page 326: 18. … When published for the first time, by Gelett Burgess in The Architectural Review XXVII (London, May 1910), pp. 401-414, the Brothel was given the title Study by Picasso – Picasso had apparently not offered a title to the interviewer. The canvas was not published again until 1925 in La Revolution Surrealiste, vol. 1, no. 4 (Paris, July 15, 1925), p. 7, where it was called a "sub-African caricature".


 * Butler and Andersen refer to the Architectural Review (UK), not the Architectural Record (US). Either it appeared in both journals at the same time, or they have confused the name of the journal. Regardless, the fact of publication is established as 1910. Per PD-art-US images published prior to 1923 are in the public domain. This is because "Under current American law, both domestic and foreign publications published prior to 1923 are in the public domain." Authorities agree on this point.


 * Lupo correctly stated above "The Picasso estate has filed 'Notices of Intent to Enforce' (NIEs) at the U.S. Copyright Office for three studies on Demoiselles d'Avignon and on the final painting itself." However, this filing is void, and they cannot enforce copyright on an image which is in the public domain because of publication prior to 1923, nor can they restore copyright in these circumstances per URAA, which applies to works published later: this is US law, which is relevant for wikipedia. Note there are other images in the Architectural Record article which are also thus PD. Disclaimer: IANAL and TINLA.


 *  Ty  02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have labeled the image PDUS. If the estate of Picasso has a bone to pick with that, they can take issue with WMF policy- it isn't my problem.  Litho  derm  02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read this very impressive history and fantasticly interesting record ; I'm convinced that the pd tag is correct and makes good sense in the light of the May 1910 article and the idea that any reproduction at that time would have been of Picasso's tour de force and not a minor or even any major study...Modernist (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Another concern
Tyrenius, you seem to have a rather good understanding of this so I will defer to you; would that not make the small image published in the journal PD, not the whole painting? As such, could copyright not still be claimed on this very large reproduction? J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a valid point. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem to be the case:
 * Another important class of possible unpublished works are artworks, in particular paintings. Because an artwork is not published by being exhibited, and also neither by being created or sold, one needs to know when reproductions of the artwork (photos, postcards, lithographs, casts of statues, and so on) were first published. That constitutes publication of the artwork, and from then on, the work is subject to all the rules for published works.

Extract from Public_domain. Note: "That constitutes publication of the artwork", i.e. the original.  Ty  01:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. This just sounds like re-hash of the last two disputes, and I barely care enough about this painting to join some big legal investigation, but it sounds like all we need to do is look for when people started using this on trinkets, museum gift shops, art print shops and other merchandise, novelties and collectibles to finally end this quarreling, if that law is valid all over. :D --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it seems Tyrenius already did this:
 * "5. Les Demoiselles was first reproduced in the Architectural Record of May 1910."
 * Sounds published to me, and prior to 1923. Bringing the old disputes into this one, even though this was a small copy, it was still the same, whole painting on a smaller scale. Even though they used the word "study" (though I don't see why that would affect anything but would like to be enlightened if anyone knows), they did make copies that were presumably resold and distributed through their paper and its patrons, possibly for profit (the estate might want to go after them for royalties instead of stopping us from using it on articles) and this was 13 years before the cutoff point. I also found this on GoogleBooks similar to the links above and this about how it is the MOST reproduced image of the last century in textbooks (wish I could find out when the first one did). Why are we still debating this? --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not merely a rehash of the previous disputes, I have raised a separate issue. However, our policy page seems pretty clear- it may be worth getting this checked, but, for now, I am happy. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but... Anyway, this claims PUBLIC DOMAIN of the image and that Picasso did about 400 "studies" dedicated to or involving the painting, I might email the webmaster for more information. This I think implies that it is PD as well, it it seems very well researched. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  23:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)