Talk:Sutton Heritage Mosaic

A fact from Sutton Heritage Mosaic appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 November 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the tiles of the Sutton Heritage Mosaic were affixed with flour and water glue?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton heritage mosaic.

Wikipedia

A fact from Sutton Heritage Mosaic appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 November 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Sutton Heritage Mosaic, one of the largest examples of wall art in Britain, consists of over 100,000 pieces?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sutton heritage mosaic.

Wikipedia

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Copyright issue

It would be useful to see the source from which the following words quoted by SovalValtos were drawn: "murals will normally be copyright-protected even if the artist is unknown. Thus, images of murals cannot usually be accepted". A P Monblat (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exception to this for many countries, including the UK. See Wikimedia Commons Freedom of Panarama. Unless anyone (eg SovalValtos) can provide evidence to the contrary, I will in due course reinstate the photo that was removed. A P Monblat (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be that this exception does not apply to graphic works such as murals. However, there are numerous photos of murals on Commons, with no apparent statement that the muralist's permission was sought to use the photo. It would good if someone who knows could clarify this issue. A P Monblat (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter , for the sourceSovalValtos (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question still remains, why are there many photos of murals on Commons, with no apparent reference in the template to the muralist? It would be helpful if anyone can throw light on this. A P Monblat (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there is more than one editor who has uploaded images to Wikimedia violating copyright, possibly including myself. If after removing the images of this mural from Commons, steps can be taken to remove any other wrong ones that have been identified, that would be good.SovalValtos (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable and/or conflicting sources

http://www.drostle.com/suttonheritage.html says that the mosaic was made "in a living room" in "1983" ; http://www.sutton.gov.uk/suttonpress/index.aspx?articleid=15218 says it was commissioned in 1994; Goodwins, Sara (2004). Sutton Past and Present, pages24-25. Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-3424-7. says it was made in a studio. Which of these sources can be considered reliable, seeing the direct contradictions. If not reliable surely the material they are supposed to support should be removed until something more solid is found? A flimsy foundation for a page, IMHO.SovalValtos (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ref to 1983 is obviously a simple typo in the artist's website; the work is clearly from the 1990s - as all the other sources state. Indeed, this page from his website says he has been working for well over 20 years (ie NOT over 30 years). As to the concern over studio vs living room, the other source (Goodwins) does not say that his studio was not (in) his living room - I have just double-checked - so I don't see a problem there. Whilst it would be a pity to leave the artist's website out of the citations, doing so would at least tackle the date issue, and may be the best course of action under the circs. Nothing in this source, apart from "black and white" is not covered by the other sources, so only those three words would need to removed as a result. What do others think? A P Monblat (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]