On 26 August 2015 at 11:09, Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name wrote: ...
Commons will accept photos of public art provided they do not infringe any copyright. That means in practice that the artwork being photographed must either be old enough to be out of copyright, or (if still in copyright) must be permanently displayed in a public place. Pieces which are part of a gallery's permanent displays are OK, but those which are part of temporary exhibitions are not.
...
that's very unusual. Almost all public art images that are deleted from Commons fail because it's really obvious that the artwork is part of a short-term and temporary display.
Telling volunteers that "on permanent display" is the rule of thumb, raises expectations that need to be managed. A new contributor who makes a lot of effort to take high quality photographs of a permanently located public artwork, would probably be upset at finding it up for deletion. If someone does run a large volunteer project in the UK, it would be a useful outcome to add marginal FoP examples that test the definition to the Commons guidelines as a UK specific case-book. In practice I would say "on permanent display, probably" is a better rule of thumb.
I think I have more experience of having uploaded photographs taken to Commons deletion discussions under Freedom of Panorama than other readers of this list, and the cases can be difficult for anyone to interpret. Off the top of my head, examples of past tricky discussions include:
1. Statues where the artist died fewer than 70 years ago and the statue has been on permanent display in the Tate for decades, but used to be in a different location. Hypothetically having been moved could mean it fails the UK FoP, however it was eventually kept under an understanding of "intention".
2. Close-up of a public park bandstand, at least 70 years old, but put up for deletion as it was painted with varied colours. Deleted.
3. Graffiti with graphical elements, many cases, deleted. Even though graffiti cannot be moved, and the artist means to make a public statement, it is still considered a non-permanent work.
4. Artwork installation of decaying salt statue. In contradiction to the way graffiti is handled, this was kept as the intention of the artist was considered to make a permanent public work, even though its nature is impermanent.
5. Political graffiti that is text only, many cases, kept. Rather than under FoP, these can be kept due to low creativity. Fancy semi-graphical text might still be deleted.
6. Decorative fixed signs, painted gates, decorative posts, again mixed results. In theory objects like decorative pub signs are not permanent, however their intent is seen as to be effectively permanent and are mostly kept. I had a photograph of a painted gate recently deleted, though probably intended by the artist as permanent this was considered more mural work and so was deleted (I think speedy deleted).
7. Fixed advertising, such as painted on walls or decorative shop-fronts. Billboard advertising fails FoP though confusingly many examples are kept on Commons as the billboard is not the "focus" of the image... only older advertising such as one might see on the side of buildings from the 1950s are invariably kept even though the ownership/copyright history may not be understood. There are plenty of more recent examples being both kept and deleted, often the issue of where to judge that the creative component is not the focus of the image is critical.
8. Painted statues, this rarely comes up, as most people seem to think that painted statues are 3D works, however close-ups of painted 3D objects are often questioned and some are deleted as a graphic work. Good recent examples are the fibreglass CowParade statues, some probably becoming fixed public works, many being highly decorated and hard to justify as being suitable for Commons.
9. Public statues which are on loan or tour. Some quite well known public artworks are on long term loan, even if weighing several tonnes and bolted into the ground in public parks. Some end up being moved around the park in redesigns, and others go on tour to other countries even though considered as on permanent display. The display history of a statue is critical if the copyright is questioned, especially for more recent artists with copyright being of interest to their estates, such as Barbara Hepworth.
The conclusion is that many Commons administrators have difficulty judging marginal cases or knowing how to assess the background of a UK work, such as whether it was a Crown commission, whether the artists' estate has an interest in protecting copyright, or what to do about corporate commissions where the company has long since gone out of trade. An understanding of the UK context which might be overlooked by some regular non-UK based deletion discussion participants can often prove critical (e.g. what Crown Copyright, WAAC or the London County Council are about).
In practice we often see marginal cases which result in significant and tiresome debate, so the bigger the case-book the better. This not only helps Commons admins, but is a practical thing to point new contributors to, rather than dry text.
Fae