Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Unisfera Flushing.jpg

Unisphere
Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014  at 02:45:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality and decent EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Unisphere
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture or Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
 * Creator:Flapane on Italian Wikipedia


 * Support as nominator – Nikhil (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hate to bring this up, but should there be concerns about the copyright status of the sculpture? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Lovely picture. That's right about copyright since Freedom of Panorama doesn't extend to sculptures in the US, but it's OK if it was installed before 1977 without a copyright notice (or one that was renewed), as the vast majority of such works were. I've added the appropriate template. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to differentiate between the sculpture and the photograph there. The photograph is certainly not PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's understood of course. Usually these descriptions don't explicitly make the distinction. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's best practice to include a way to differentiate them. Adam differentiates between the copyright of the source work and his restoration (restorations attract new copyright in the UK), and when I've been asked to note the copyright of a structure on a description page I've generally separated the copyright for the structure and the photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just went to do it and saw you've already done it. In future I'll make the distinction, but as I say the vast majority of these files don't. It's logical to make the distinction and it might serve a purpose in educating the surprising number of people who imagine just donating an image they took themselves confers PD on the image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This gives me the strong impression that they had copyrighted the statue. I'd hope for an RS that says it is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does that document suggest to you it had been copyrighted? I'm not being obstructive when I note that most artworks weren't copyrighted at the time. That's just a fact. I've seen a figure of 90% quoted as not copyrighted. Of course it can be easily checked, but I should hope it needn't go to that. It's been on Commons nearly three years and no one's challenged it despite the extensive patrolling that site receives. I appreciate the criteria say the work should be PD but there's no cause to challenge it's not, and that's not what we're about, the original issue raised here doubtlessly in ignorance of US copyright law. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No entries for Gilmore D Clarke (the landscape artist who designed the work and presumably owns any copyright) at the US Copyright Office. You have to present yourself in person for registrations before 1978. There are various records for "Unisphere", but these refer to a jazz suite by Dave Brubeck performed at the World Fair. I think there's due diligence here and we need not worry about copyright Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know we'd have to go in person, which is why I didn't rely only on that source (we could also find PDFs of the actual records, but my connection can't handle that). I believe that source suggests United States Steel is the copyright holder. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Commons lets copyvios get by all the time. I wouldn't take 3 years on Commons as proof that someone has looked into this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The document talks about the World Fair registering the Unisphere's image as a trademark. The copyright of the work itself, however, belongs to the creator on my understanding and that doesn't seem to have been registered. I suggest you raise it at one of the copyright forums. Stefan will know. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was constructed over 1963 and 1964 so (if it has a notice) which year was it published? If 1963 then copyright would have to have been renewed (1991?). Can we check for renewal with certainty? (I am out of my depth so these are remarks and not statements of fact.). Thincat (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Thincat. Thanks for responding. I was looking for renewals when I searched at US Copyright. I didn't see any. Just the Dave Brubeck quartet thing (which I must search out and have a listen). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I couldn't find anything either, but I don't know how to do these things properly. If it was first published in 1964 I don't think it would have needed renewal. Thincat (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Missed the first question: the copyright holders (US Steel) were very strict about enforcing the copyright on images which reproduced the statue (note how they required copyright notices be included for all published photographic reproductions). This attention to copyright suggests they would have copyrighted the original statue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with looking for a renewal is that the absense of a renewal is not proof that this has lapsed into PD territory. See the Hirtle chart: 1964 through 1977 (Published with notice) expires 95 years after publication date (earliest 2060). No renewal necessary. All we need is proof of notice (hard to do unless we check the whole sculpture) and registration (much simpler). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * K, I've been through Archive.org's scans, and the only copyrights for the Unisphere I found were photographic representations of it. Guess this is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion at Media_copyright_questions. Response so far is that unregistered work before 1977 is PD (for the benefit of newcomers to US copyright law, before that date works had to be formally registered for copyright protection and works of art generally were not). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Concerning the copyright question, the outcome of the discussion is that its public domain status is confirmed. It would be a pity if editors refrained from supporting this fine image out of scruples over copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, sharp enough, tourists add scale (and thus I don't mind them). Though I'd put this in Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added the same. Thanks for your suggestion. Nikhil (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. I have asked the author for the same and am awaiting his reply. Thanks. Nikhil (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm the original uploader. I've just added geocoding tags on Commons page. Thanks for letting me know. --Flapane (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral. It's a very nice photo, but looking more closely, I found myself rather distracted by the building with flag seemingly floating behind the sculpture, its base obscured by the fountains. Crop also feels rather tight at the top. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral It's a very nice photo, but looking more closely, I found myself rather distracted by the flowerbed and its colors in the foreground. The picture would have been much cleaner and clearer if the photograph was standing in such manner that the flowerbed was behind him. The turist I don't mind. Hafspajen (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 04:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)