Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures in the United States

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.

Wax figures in the United States

[edit]

No COM:FOP in the United States so wax figures in the United States are presumably copyrighted. --Wknight94 talk 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:Mme Tussauds Hollywood.jpg
  2. File:Malcolm X Tussauds.jpg
  3. File:Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner examine wax figure.jpg
  4. File:Kim Kardashian surrounded by photos.jpg
  5. File:Kim Kardashian with wax double.jpg
  •  Delete Nuts. Forgot about that lil' wrinkle in the law. I've fired an email off to the Madame Toussards organization via their website in hopes of getting them to clear the images for use. In the interim, I'd say (with heavy heart) delete. Tabercil (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the uploader of the first picture. I'm not sure about the other files and I'm no expert in US law, but I was under the impression that copyrighted objects are permitted as long as they are part of a larger composition. See for example File:Logo BP Delft.jpg, where the copy-righted logo of our oil-spilling friends is clearly the subject of the picture, as part of a larger composition. The composition in the Hollywood picture is my own work, and though the wax figure is a central part of the composition, it's not even the sole subject (as is the case with the BP logo). The composition matters: it's intended to show people making fun with a wax figure, not a wax figure. Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd prefer, we can split one out to its own DR if you think it is different than the rest. Wknight94 talk 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume there is possibly an exception for pictures of works of art when the art is only part of a composition. I think so because of my experience with logos. The same exception can be valid for the other pictures too, except for the second one. My own picture (the first) is the only one taken in public space (the others are inside a museum I think). If my pressumption is wrong, all pictures should be deleted. Woudloper (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't know about madame toussauds, but I know that the Wax Museum in San Francisco has big signs in front of it that say "you are allowed to take pictures here". So maybe asking for permission make things clear. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're not above having people take the photos - I mean, there's a Flickr group dedicated to the London branch of it. See here. What we need is a touch of clarification that we can host those specific images. Tabercil (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right - host them and allow free downstream use, including for commercial purposes, and derivatives. Wknight94 talk 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did that already as soon as the DR went up. See File:Kim Kardashian at Madame Tussards.jpg. The pic of Kim surrounded by photographers can't really be cropped out without really loosing something, and the one of Kim and Kris was uploaded only so I could put up as sourced File:Kris Jenner.jpg. Tabercil (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've heard from the photographer of the three Kim photos, and she's going to get in touch with the folks at Madame Tussard's to see if she can get clearance. She should be able to get in touch with the appropriate folks a lot faster than I can, as she works for the Rubenstein PR firm... and I'd bet that Tussard's is a client of theirs. Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Okay, the photographer's heard back from the folks at Madame Tussard's, and they're are not only willing to consent to the use of these image under the stated license, but they're willing to agree to a more open-ended one. So any suggestions for wording?? Tabercil (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have it from the Madame Tussard's folks yet, nor have I yet been in direct communication with them. So far it's me with the photographer, and the people at Rubenstein (where she works) talking to Madame Tussards. From the last email I got: "So the client is wondering if I could draft something that they can just sign off on. I figure you know better than I do what the statement needs to say. Would you be able to write a quick paragraph or let me know what I should write in the statement so that all of your needs are met? I was told that the client is fine with the open-ended permission." First time I've been in a situation in a long time where I'm going for more than just one or two pics... Tabercil (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the U.S. for sculptures. Kameraad Pjotr 21:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Wax_figures_in_the_United_States&oldid=539051031"