File talk:Frida Kahlo (self portrait).jpg

[Untitled]

While the painting may well be public domain, since it appears to have been made in 1940 (not before 1923) this would appear to depend upon the specifics of copyright registration and renewal and whatever complexities are further introduced by differences between U.S. and Mexican law. We have received a concerned email from the owner of the physical painting stating that the painting may still be in copyright. Since there is at least a passable fair use case, we should proceed with caution; I don't believe that any action is justified unless we receive confirmation that the copyright was indeed registered and renewed in a timely fashion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at University of Texas at Austin, the current owner of the painting, is rather sensitive about unauthorised publication of its possessions. They've denied providing high quality digital scans of the world's first photograph, for example. They are the ones to petition. Spamguy 19:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions

Hi Crisco 1492, thanks for your question. This issue was discussed at length ~~in 2010~~ years ago and it was agreed that the image would remain on only those three articles. At the time it was long discussed with many of the members of the project who focus on fair-use. The image was deemed to satisfy this Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. and was voted acceptable in those select cases. Kahlo was an important painter who was known for her self portraits in particular and she is especially important to the history of painting. I am going to return those fair use rationales and images to those articles. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the discussion? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for the last hour. I got through all of my edits through June 2010 and the discussion goes back further. I suspect it actually took place in 2009 or possibly 2008. We had a similar discussion concerning Picasso's Guernica. We also wound up agreeing to limit that painting to just a few historically important articles. I will continue searching for that discussion, it probably will take a while, but I'll find it...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you can find it. If not, I'd rather have another discussion to be sure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that - I'm currently looking through my edits in November 2009 and earlier...Modernist (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K, I'll give you a couple days for that. I'm not sure where we should have another discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to the Guernica discussions: [1], [2], [3], still looking for the Kahlo discussion. Here is the place these things are generally discussed: Wikipedia:Non-free content review...Modernist (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Kahlo discussion from 2007: [4]...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember there might be a second Kahlo discussion that I haven't found yet. I've looked through my edits to June 2009. However its possible that somewhere between 2007 and June 2009 there is a second Kahlo discussion. I will let this search go as of now these should be sufficient...Modernist (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this in mind - from a discussion in 2010:

Foundation licensing policy

This is stated in an excerpt from Kat Walsh's post on Foundation mailing list:

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose. ...Modernist (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guernica discussions establish our need to include certain Fair Use images of works of art in important articles. Kahlo is among 5 of the best known artists to extensively use the self portrait as an important element in her oeuvre. The others being Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt van Rijn, Vincent van Gogh and Egon Schiele. Her image in Self-portrait is important especially because a painting cannot be described in words it needs to be seen. Her importance in the History of painting is also crucial, she was among the very few significant women artists, and Latin American artists of the period...Modernist (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any earlier artists? You say "of the same period". I'm still rather unconvinced that they pass FUC1 and FUC8. (We really need another abbreviation for those criteria...) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically no, these issues have been argued over and over again. The imagery cannot be replaced by words...Modernist (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]