Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Athens

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.

Files in Category:Graffiti in Athens

Copyrightable as street art. No Freedom of Panorama in Greece.

Geraki ^T_L^G 19:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Graffiti --Sailko (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Reproductions may be permitted in a few nations that have freedom of panorama for 2D works". Unfortunately, Greece does not have Freedom of Panorama. --Geraki ^T_L^G 19:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Azerifactory (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Graffiti is not under panorama restrictions.--ManosHacker (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Greece. Bending over backwards to retain content that we know is not freely licensed because we've decided that the rightsholder's claim would face difficulty in the courts goes against the spirit of the project and against the precautionary principle. Even if you reject that sentiment, the most recent judgement at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Non-free graffiti is that in order for a work of graffiti to be allowed on Commons, there has to be a credible source indicating that the graffiti is illegal (because if it's legal, then it unambiguously has copyright protections). In the EU, if the authorship is unknown, as in the case of this graffiti, the copyright does not expire until 70 years from the publication date. Any Greek graffiti that doesn't meet that age test has to go. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Special considerations regardless of outcome of the category as a whole

Delete File:Graffiti in Athens, Greece.jpg, as a high quality full wall piece, could very likely be a commission, and thus be legal, which would mean that even if the category is kept, this file should be deleted.

Delete File:Pink_Panther_in_Exarcheia.jpg, as a painted sign in front of a shop, could very likely be a commission, and thus be legal, which would mean that even if the category is kept, this file should be deleted.

Delete File:Athens_graffiti_eyeglass_storefront_(33485345972).jpg, as a painted sign in front of a shop, could very likely be a commission, and thus be legal, which would mean that even if the category is kept, this file should be deleted.

Delete File:Athens,_Klepsidras_05.JPG, as a high quality full wall piece in front of a shop, could very likely be a commission, and thus be legal, which would mean that even if the category is kept, this file should be deleted.

Keep File:Athens, Odos Pittaki.JPG, the graffiti in this picture is a di minimis element, with the light fixture installation as the focus, which would mean that even if the category is deleted, this file should be kept

Keep File:Clinic in Exarcheia.jpg, the graffiti in this picture is a di minimis element, with the clinic as the focus, which would mean that even if the category is deleted, this file should be kept

Delete File:Graffiti Gazi - Kerameikos.jpg, as a high quality full wall piece, especially with its inaccessibility, is very likely a commission, and thus be legal, which would mean that even if the category is kept, this file should be deleted.

Delete File:Panionios graffiti 1.JPG, File:Panionios graffiti 2.JPG, File:Panionios graffiti 3.JPG, File:Panionios graffiti 4.JPG, File:Panionios graffiti 9.JPG, based on the file description, these could very likely be commissioned or authorized by the club, and thus legal, which would mean that even if the category is kept, these files should be deleted.

Delete File:Γκάζι.jpeg is a high quality, full wall, signed (authorship known) work, and therefore is almost certainly legal, which would mean that even if the category is kept, this file should be deleted.

Keep File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (151).jpg and File:Athens, Greece - panoramio (152).jpg, the graffiti in this picture is a di minimis element, with the ruins as the focus, which would mean that even if the category is deleted, this file should be kept

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy's Special considerations. I insist the rest are to be left as illegal street paintings (graffiti).--ManosHacker (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of the discussion around the category, I'd say File:Athens 2018-02 02.jpg at least deserves to be glanced at separately with de minimis in mind. I wasn't interested in photographing the graffiti here; I was aiming for the building and that's what's in focus. /Julle (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Conspiracy's evaluation looks correct to me based on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Non-free graffiti. High-quality graffiti that is likely to have been commissioned or otherwise permitted is not an illegal work and therefore is eligible for copyright protection, unless it's demonstrated to have been illegal. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BMacZero, I could not find the acceptable criteria in Wikimedia Commons for characterizing graffiti as illegal.--ManosHacker (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ManosHacker: It's not up to Commons to decide whether grafitti is illegal, we'd just refer to the laws of the jurisdiction where the photo was taken. I suspect that almost universally, illegal grafitti would be grafitti that was created without the consent of the property owner. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BMacZero: that is vague and leads to totally subjective decisions. Have a look here the conversation regarding File:Graffiti, Athens (10046334725).jpg. Is OTRS-like ticket needed for graffiti?--ManosHacker (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ManosHacker: I doubt real-world laws concerning grafitti are either vague or subjective. The admission of the artist that he paints illegally you found in that other thread, though, is good evidence that we can keep that artist's work based on the rationale in the previous DR. If you can find more such statements, those artists' works can be kept in my opinion. If not, I still believe they should be deleted per COM:PRP. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BMacZero: According to the Greek Law, ~~painting in~~ not keeping the front faces of their buildings clean is illegal (as stated here, during a graffiti cleanup operation). Murals are usually commissioned ~~only~~ in blind faces of the buildings. There are also commissioned murals on large side walls in Technopolis, Athens as well as telephone company boxes in the center of Athens.--ManosHacker (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The debate around "illegal grafitti", "commissioned work of art" etc. is irrelevant to the subject. The law protects "any original intellectual literary, artistic or scientific creation, expressed in any form". "The protection afforded under this Law shall apply regardless of the value of the work and its destination". "The initial holder of the economic right and the moral right in a work shall be the author of that work." There is a whole section on the greek law with exceptions that limit the power of authors to exploit the value of their work, but there is no mention or indication that it is limited by the legality of the action of creating the work or even on the ownership of the medium where the work of art was created. So, a) whether the work was commisioned or illegal, the copyright belongs to the creator. b) the law does not prohibit the creator to exploit the copyright even if he painted it on something that does not belong to him (no exclusivity to the medium holder). So anyone can create graffiti, pay a fine of 150 euros for vandalism, but charge 1000s of euros for reproductions of his work. -Geraki ^T_L^G 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Destroying art work" has not stopped the Municipality of Athens to clean-up 25 areas from graffiti, nor was any legal step against this action. Graffiti in the front of faces of buildings is illegal in Greece. Copyright has to be proven and the greek law asks for the author's signature.--ManosHacker (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "cleaning of the buildings" has nothing to do with copyright or value of the works. The municipality literally said (quote): "We are not against art and public intervention, on the contrary. The municipality, however, is not in the process of judging whether this smudge is art or not". Also, they are cleaning graffiti only from public buildings. Also, I have already mentioned that the medium used is not a factor for determining if something is copyrightable or not. The only factor is originality. Destroying the canvas does not proove anything about the copyright of its copies.

No, the greek law does not require the author's signature. It says that it is only a way to initially presume who is the author and also (quote) "the same shall apply when the name that appears is a pseudonym, provided that the pseudonym leaves no doubt as to the person’s identity", and that, even for anonymous works, at any time the creator may reveal his identity, acquiring his rights at the condition they were while his indentity was hidden.

In fact, many of this works are tags: the work is the signature itself.

Many also do have signatures that they are already leave no doubt as to the person's identity: File:Currency Graffiti.jpg. Let's look at this, because it is interesting. The uploader of the photo claims copyright as the creator being "Zigomitros Athanasios". But there is a signature on the graffito by N_Grams who is a known street artist: Dimitris Naiplis. The photo is a derivative work of the graffito, and not original by itself.

Other photos also are taken is some way that the signature is hidden: File:Γκάζι.jpeg There is a half signature on the top right corner of the photo. We cannot identify the creator not because he did not leave a signature but only because it is not revealed in this photo. Yet, one more time the one who claims copyright of the photo is the uploader. Did/does the painting in File:Real Estate (3384265616).jpg have a signature or not? Who knows? Even the person who took the photo may not remember how they framed the photo. Because they did not care. But WE care.

-Geraki ^T_L^G 13:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I came here because File:K VOX.jpg is nominated for deletion. This particular picture is taken of the K Vox squat. So I don't believe it should be deleted because there is some graffiti in the photograph. I have removed it from the category. If anyone wants more information on the squat it is the focus of the book chapter Hetero-utopias: Squatting and spatial materialities of resistance in Athens at times of crisis which can be found as an online pdf. Perhaps there are other photographs in the same boat here. Mujinga (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Graffiti Evrik (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Kept: I'm deleting the images identified by The Squirrel Conspiracy as the most likely copyright violations. To delete the rest would require overturning Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti, which would also affect dozens of other categories. That should be handled in an RFC, not here. --Kaldari (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Athens

Files in Category:Graffiti in Athens

Navigation menu

Search