Commons:Deletion requests/File:South Africa - Anglo-Boer War Memorial-003.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:South Africa - Anglo-Boer War Memorial-003.jpg

[edit]

Naoum Aronson was the sculptor and he died in 1943 (see [1] and [2]). There is no Freedom of panorama in South Africa, so images of these works would not enter the public domain until 2014. 84user (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. A photo of an architectural structure is not a copy of the structure and therefore does not constitute a copyright violation. The South African Copyright Act states:
    • “copy” means a reproduction of a work, and, in the case of a literary, musical or artistic work, a cinematograph film or a computer program, also an adaptation thereof: Provided that an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building; [Definition of “copy” substituted by s. 1 (h) of Act No. 125 of 1992.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJR ZA (talk • contribs)

See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#South Africa photographs revisited where I have revisited the question of photographs in South Africa. -84user (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: I don't think the new definition of copy has the effect asserted. Section 7(a) of the Act states: "Copyright in an artistic work vests the exclusive right to do or to authorize the doing of any of the following acts in the Republic: ... (a) Reproducing the work in any manner or form ...". Section 1(1) defines reproduction in relation to an artistic work as "[including] a version produced by converting the work into a three-dimensional form or, if it is in three dimensions, by converting it into a two-dimensional form". The same section defines artistic work as meaning, "irrespective of the artistic quality thereof", "paintings, sculptures, drawings, engravings and photographs" and "works of architecture, being either buildings or models of buildings", among other things. Finally, section 23(1) states: "Copyright shall be infringed by any person, not being the owner of the copyright, who, without the licence of such owner, does or causes any other person to do, in the Republic, any act which the owner has the exclusive rights to do or to authorize." Thus, according to these sections, the following conclusions can be made:
  • Buildings and models of buildings, regardless of their artistic quality, are artistic works.
  • The copyright owner of an artistic work has the exclusive right to reproduce the work in any manner or form.
  • Reproducing a three-dimensional work includes converting it to a two-dimensional form (such as making a two-dimensional photograph or a three-dimensional building).
  • Copyright is infringed if a person does something that the copyright owner has an exclusive right to do (e.g., reproduce an artistic work) without a licence from the copyright owner.
Nowhere in any of these sections is there a reference to copy. It would appear that the new definition of copy is relevant only to section 28 of the Act. Section 28(1) provides that a copyright owner can request the Commissioner for Customs and Excise to treat copies of a copyrighted work as prohibited goods. Section 28(2) states: "This section shall apply to any copy of the work in question made outside the Republic which if it had been made in the Republic would be an infringing copy of the work." Infringing copy, in relation to a literary, musical or artistic work, is defined in section 1(1) as a "a copy thereof". Thus, since "an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building", a copyright owner cannot ask the Commissioner to treat drawings, paintings, photographs, etc., of works of architecture as prohibited goods. But nothing in the Act provides that architectural works in South Africa may now be freely photographed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wait a minute, I've just noticed Commons:Licensing#South Africa has: "Most other works are copyrighted for 50 years after the death of the author." That means for South Africa, both the memorial by Lutyens (who died 1944) and its angel by Naoum Aronson (died 1943) would already have entered the public domain. The copyright act appears to support this at 3 (2): "The term of copyright conferred by this section shall be, in the case of- (a) literary or musical works or artistic works, other than photographs, the life of the author and fifty years from the end of the year in which the author dies:". As nominator I would vote  Keep for these two images. -84user (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: Yes, I agree. By the way, I've updated "Commons:Licensing#South Africa". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per above. INeverCry 15:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:South_Africa_-_Anglo-Boer_War_Memorial-003.jpg&oldid=491133938"