Talk:Surrogate's Courthouse

Surrogate's Courthouse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 18, 2021.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 9, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
September 25, 2021	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 15, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Beaux Arts exterior of the 1907 Surrogate's Courthouse in New York features no fewer than 54 sculptures of historical and allegorical figures?

Current status: Featured article

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 15, 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiruyanila Paramathas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

Could "Percy Jackson" be incorporated into the sentence that follows it? I'm not a regular editor of this page, so i don't want to intrude on anyone who might be. AnUnusualGuy (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal photos

I have tried to take photos of the interior of this building and was stopped by the court police. It is illegal to take photos of the inside of the building. The guard said the outside of the building is legal to take photos.

In Wikipedia, it would not be allowed to murder someone then show their body parts in WP, such as in an article about heart or lungs. Similarly, illegally taken photos of the inside of this building should be hidden or something like clicking a link. That way, readers in Canada or Europe or Africa or other places can see it (where they don't have laws against taking a photo of the inside of a NY court building.) GuardianOfLaws (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A corpse and a building are two different things, and a guard and the NY court system doesn't dictate what can or can't be on Wikipedia. The Wiki community decides that. Jerm (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP has no authority to change laws. GuardianOfLaws (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do the laws of NY change what's on Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone (not me) makes a threat of "Jim will kill you" or "Jim will shoot up a school", WP will certainly do something in accordance with laws. Therefore, WP should try to observe laws. I will NOT fight because I am not the police but I have made my statement that WP should observe laws. Maybe hide the photos and make it so you can click to see them?GuardianOfLaws (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're here to enforce laws, then you don't belong on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia has its own policies when handling death threats and disruptive individuals such as yourself. Jerm (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The access/legality of being in the place and being allowed to take the photo are issues between the photographer and whatever authorities control it. But once it's taken, the photographer has license for the photo and can release it as they wish subject only to license laws. That is, the copyright issues are distinct from the access-permission issues. See commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#MUSEUM. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GuardianOfLaws, on one hand I understand your frustration. I also could not get photos of the building's interior, even though it's technically a public space. Interior landmarks are required to be public, but especially after 9/11, several buildings with interior landmarks tightened their restrictions against public access. I can add the public restriction if there is a reliable source.

However, note that the illegality of something is irrelevant to the copyright status. The U.S. has freedom of panorama for buildings, including their public interiors. As long as the photograph is released under a compatible and correct license, it's not pertinent whether it was also legally obtained, as DMacks said. Public access even depends on the day of the week and the time of day. For example, I could enter the New York Public Library Main Branch at 12 noon on a Wednesday and take pictures, but if I did that at midnight then it would be trespassing. On the other hand, we don't bar images of the library's interior just because it could be illegal to enter at some point in time. Furthermore, viewing of the images is not illegal in any case. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOP is likely not applicable here because the focus is on a mural (art) not a utilitarian-nature architectural feature, and US law makes that distinction. See commons:COM:MURAL. DMacks (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about FOP. The murals are also public domain, however, having dated from before 1926 (i.e. 1907). This was addressed in the article's FAC, where the copyright status of the murals was discussed. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayup. I also mentioned it on WP:VPPOL#Illegal photos and classified information where a parallel discussion is happening (was what first drew me here). Glad to see it's well-established by multiple independent editors at different times. DMacks (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GuardianOfLaws, technically a photo of body parts would be allowed. We'd remove it out of respect for family and friends of the victim primarily and possible personality rights issues second. It may also be deemed trial evidence which possibly influences the legality. A more suitable example is to steal a diamond and take a photo of it for Diamond (gemstone). We'd probably inform the authorities about the theft, but there would be no reason to remove the photo. (but if we have an equally good image of a non-stolen diamond we'd probably swap it out anyway) A more practical example could be if someone purchased a game development kit from an auction site (which is almost certainly possession of stolen goods) and took a photo for us. We wouldn't remove that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites reports that they took one of the interior photos during Open House New York, an annual event where people can tour and take photos of architecturally significant buildings that are usually closed to the public. Accordingly, the assertion by GuardianOfLaws that this photo is "illegal" is incorrect. Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time you tried to take the photos it was not allowed for you to do so, although it's not clear if it was actually illegal or just against the courthouse's policies. However, that doesn't mean that it always was against policy/illegal, or always is. It also doesn't mean that there is no way to get permission to take such photographs, or that there are no classes of people, such as accredited media, that are allowed to take such pictures. In other words, just because you were told no doesn't mean that all such pictures are illegal. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]