Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: Are we really going through this again? This topic was discussed in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg in November 2019 and, again, in November 2020 in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eugowra Mural.JPG, and each time the verdict was Keep. Tell me how these repeated failed attempts to have these images of murals in Australia deleted despite a broad consensus that they are not copyright violations is not disruptive behavior? Calistemon (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do have cases like this was deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the image depicted but, I would say, because nobody else took any note of the deletion discussion, and you, despite being part of previous discussions that established the above mentioned consensus, went and nominated it for deletion. Calistemon (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Now covered by FOP. --Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really covered. The undeletions a few years before were made without proper discussions at Village Pump or other similar major forums. Much of the contention stems from the claim that street art is covered by Australian FoP because these are "works of artistic craftsmanship", but there has been no community-wide consensus that Australian street art can be freely exploited (see also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12#Concern on Australian murals). Moreover, a 2019 information sheet from the Australian Copyright Council concerning street art provides a different answer: street art is not a work of artistic craftsmanship (therefore not covered by Section 65), and that commercial exploitations are subject to permissions from copyright holders. The Burge decision as well as Ms. Pila's scholarly inputs do not provide answers if murals can be freely exploited by commercial users without artists' permissions. See also a concern at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Please comment: proposal to delete text under FOP heading. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that a painting is not a work of artistic craftsmanship defies logic. Was the 2019 information sheet you cite the last word on that question? On the face of it, User:Aymatth2's comment in the linked discussion is very persuasive, but legal authorities can define a mural as an animal or vegetable if they really want to, I suppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek don't expect legal authorities in Australia will treat murals as works of artistic craftsmanship that we can freely exploit and license commercially, to the harm of painters who created those works. The Australian Wikimedians who seem to defend the free exploitation of Australian murals seem to be overly focused on the technicality of the term "works of artistic craftsmanship", but even then at least one user expressed concern that Ms. Pila's literature does not really address the basic question of Wikimedians: if the murals and street art are indeed works of artistic craftsmanship and can be freely exploited by postcard makers, photographers (like Wikimedians in general), and others who commercially exploit the works. The court ruling does seem to define the parameters of which of the utilitarian works are works of artistic craftsmanship and which are not. While a user said that there are numerous postcards showing copyrighted murals being sold, it goes against the fifth part of COM:PRP. Also, his claim that a court case may finalize the bounds of Australian FoP is risky; perhaps a mural artist vs. Wikimedia Foundation because we are allowing commercially-licensed images of a certain Australian mural without the artist's licensing permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to section 65 of the copyright law, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship in a public place may be copied in two-dimensional form: painting, drawing, photograph, video etc. An implied point is that a 2D copy of a 3D work cannot be seen as a replacement for the original. A 2D copy of a 2D work could. This source defines work of artistic craftsmanship as: "material that possesses an artistic quality, were created as a result of the creators craftsmanship and are not mass produced item are an artistic work. This may include embroidery, tapestry, needlework and other crafts, as well as handmade ceramics, handmade jewellery and crafted furniture." The list does not include murals and grafitti. The Copyright Council is clear: "Copyright automatically protects most works of street art as artistic works where those works: have resulted from some skill and effort; are not simply copied from something else; and are recorded in material form (e.g. stencils, murals, graffiti, posters, yarn bombing, stick-ups or tags)." This photograph of a mural and all similar Australian steeet art copyright violations should be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I understand. So they define murals as 2D art, not craftsmanship? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is common to the laws of many countries. A 2 dimensional picture of a building, sculpture or other 3 dimensional work is no substitute for the work itself. But a high quality 2D reproduction of a 2D work may well be seen as a substitute, and may greatly reduce the value of the author's copyright. The mural artist can therefore charge for the right to reproduce their work, just as an artist who paints on canvas, board or paper can. The "artistic craftsmanship" concept is also common. It is something handmade using traditional techniques like weaving, potting or woodworking, and has both functional and artistic value. Copyright may not last as long, and 2D reproduction is generally allowed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aymatth2@Ikan Kekek even the website of Wikimedia Australia chapter admits that murals can only be used as incidental (de minimis) objects in films that can be shared here (like .webm videos), but those cannot be used as main subjects of videos, moreover, murals should not be present in commercially-licensed images unless there is a prior CC licensing clearances from the painters. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nominator. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Has there been any actual changes to Australian jurisprudence in the last few years? @Ankry: @Bidgee: @Chris.sherlock: Abzeronow (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]