Talk:Sutton Heritage Mosaic

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)