![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does anyone know where I might be able to order a poster-sized print of Dancel? It's an absolutely beautiful image, and I'd love to have it on my office wall. TIA. Microtonal... (Put your head on my shoulder) 03:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
We're going to delete Alfons Mucha's paintings from Commons. The copyright details are complicated,
It was decided to delete them as per the death of author + 70 years rule. It may still be admissible on English Wikipedia as per {{ PD-US}}. If you are interested in keeping them, you should move them to English Wikipedia. Thanks. Fred- Chess 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The 70 years were up on Jan. 1, 2010. See "Copyright" section below. The photos of the works may still be copyrighted, though. Enon ( talk) 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know what Mucha's religion was in relation to the religious paintings and drawings he created. -- Ethii 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Mucha was raised in a catholic family and was a freemason-- Georgius 11:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Carnavalet museum in Paris has the re-located decoration of an Art Nouveau jewelry shop, the design of which Mucha participated in. -- Error 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a cola ad on TV in North America where people run into a square. There's a banner that says "Aflons Mucha" in one scene. Does anyone know if this ad is filmed in Prague perhaps? Krupo 01:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
At the outbreak of the Second World War he was arrested and questioned by German occupiers.
No kidding. World War II started on September 1st. This chap died on July 14th. (But by that time Germany already did occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia).
Do change the sentence, someone.
I've removed the legal controversy section as it seemed only vaguely related to the subject matter and had absolutely no explanation as why it was there. If anyone can come up with a better reason for it being there then they can put it back in. -- WaterWolf 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And I've removed an allegation that someone else plagiarized Mucha's works, for similar reasons. (Also, it smelled like original research.) grendel| khan 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the issue of plagiarism of Mucha is mostly moot for works created after December 31, 2009, whether you go by Czech or French law. It has been over 70 years since his death, and all his works are out of copyright. (Photos, scans and databases of his work may still be in limited copyright, though. Works after 1923 may still have US copyright, if they were registered in the US and the term was renewed.) Companies using his work as a trademark are still protected against competitors using confusingly similar designs.
Czech law (I-11-5) does grant his family the right to insist that he be identified as the author of his works, even after the expiration of the copyright, but works which are merely similar rather than outright copies would probably not fall under this provision.
The French copyright situation is somewhat muddied by extensions to the copyright term for works during or before WWII or even greater for those during or before WWI, but these have been voided by the highest court in France for paintings, and the applicable term is life plus 70 years for Mucha's works which have French copyright. This machine translation of the French Wikipedia page lays out the law: Prorogations_de_guerre / (Copyright extensions of war) and this translation gives the text of the court judgement: 04-12138 Judgement No. 280 of February 27, 2007 Court of Cassation - First Civil Chamber
If anyone has some information indicating that Mucha's works are still under copyright, please respond. Enon ( talk) 04:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a statement that his works went out of copyright on 1/1/2010 in the "legacy" section. I contend that this is not OR because it simply involves adding 70 years + 1 day to the last day of the year in which he died. This calculation is clearly spelled out in the Czech laws referenced above and the other citations given. I did research to verify the correctness of this, but it was not original research, just verifying references. I looked for contrary data and found none, except as noted above, and those quibbles are close to OR, so I have left them for the talk page. If someone has a good source which contradicts this method of calculating the expiration of copyright, then please cut or change the assertion in the article, but please also lay out your reasoning here. Enon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC).
I have replaced the deleted line saying that A.M.'s works went out of copyright. It is obviously very important information about any artist's legacy whether or not the right to copy his works is in the public domain. While it may not be mentioned in other art articles, it should be, particularly when the passage into the public domain is recent or otherwise not obvious. Enon ( talk) 14:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I probably should have reverted the page, but I copied and pasted an older version over the vandalized part by oh-so-mature 164.58.145.60. Feel free to revert if I've messed something up. -- 144.91.50.183 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The full text of the paper by Asmus is available at http://www.datafilehost.com/download-a1b65bad.html Asmus is a highly respected scientist and technical expert. Fitzcantab ( talk) 03:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been in a dispute with ThuranX about the validity of a claim that Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda. I would appreciate a third party adjudicating on this matter. Below my arguments as per ThuranX's talk page:
Thanks for your care and attention in editing the Alphonse Mucha page. With reference to our discussion over edits, the theory that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda, the key Art Nouveau work, is a fringe theory. This is evidenced by the facts:
(a) that the theory was published in a journal unrelated to Art History studies (b) that despite the article being published 12 years ago, it has not been cited since in any Art History journal (c) that no literature on Paul Gauguin claims or suggests that Gauguin created the source work for Gismonda
Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories says that fringe theories 'describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study'. The evidence I have cited - particularly point (b) - proves this is the case with regard to the theory that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda. Moreover, the policy says 'If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia'. The facts I have set out in points (b) and (c) prove that the theory has not met notability requirements. As such, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
Given these facts, I respectfully suggest that the claim that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda is removed from the Wikipedia article about Alphonse Mucha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.62.88 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I believe that the reasons have remained consistent throughout. Mucha did not plagiarise Gismonda from a work by Gauguin, and the theory that he did is a fringe theory that has no place in an article on Mucha. I do not believe this is a whitewash.
Can you offer evidence that suggests that this plagiarism is not a fringe theory? i.e. secondary reliable sources commenting on, discussing or disparaging the theory? I would be happy to stand corrected if you are able to find such evidence. Until then, I respectfully suggest that the claim about plagiarism is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 ( talk)
Thanks for responding. I have not read your article in full as I cannot access it online. However, I have read the abstract, and I find the argument tenuous at various points. Perhaps you can clear up various matters to make a more convincing case:
1. Do you have any evidence that the collage of postage stamps predates Gismonda the Poster? The abstracts suggests that your evidence is that the collage is more detailed than the poster. But that in no way proves it is an earlier work. It is a major and illogical leap to go from 'the collage is more detailed than the poster' to 'the poster is a hasty photographic plagiarism of the intricate collage'.
2. Is there any evidence other than analysis of scratches to suggest that these were items that once belonged to Gauguin? For example, is there any evidence in Gauguin's letters that he had items stolen by Anna la Javanese, and that these items were amongst them? In the absence of such supporting evidence, it is a large leap to go from 'there are similar scratches on these two items in an estate sale' to 'these items definitely belonged to Paul Gauguin'. Therefore, to go from similarities in scratches to a reattribution of a major work in the History of Art is tenuous.
3. While Anna la Javanese modelled for Mucha, there is no evidence that suggests she was his lover (Mucha was not averse to taking lovers of his models, as with Berthe de Lalande, but when he did there is considerable evidence). Given that she was not his lover, the claim that she stole items from one lover to give to another to copy is invalid.
4. Mucha was an extensive photographer, and an inveterate hoarder of his photographs. To my knowledge, there are no extant photographs that Mucha took that are photographs of the collage that you describe. Could you provide evidence of such a photograph existing that Mucha took of the collage that would amount to a 'hasty photographic plagiarism'?
4. There is no evidence in the letters either of Mucha or of Gauguin that either of them believed that Mucha plagiarised Gismonda. Mucha and Gauguin were good friends. At the time when Mucha became famous, Gauguin was still an artist who had struggled hard and on the whole unsuccessfully for recognition. It is hard to believe that they would have continued to be friends had Mucha got rich (as he did following Gismonda) by plagiarising Gauguin's work.
In your response to my initial notes, you say that your techniques have been developed 'to aid art historians in examining a pre-existing question of plagarism'. Could you cite any instance that proves this Mucha-Gauguin is a pre-existing question of plagiarism? The only evidence I have ever seen for it is the abstract for your article. You also say 'NO art historian is likely to cite the technical side article when they can cite the conclusions'. Whether that is true or not, no Art Historian has cited the conclusion of the article since its publication twelve years ago.
In the light of all this, I respectfully maintain that this is a fringe argument, and without further evidence to justify the major logical leaps it takes, a tenuous argument. The Mucha wikipedia page is the first port of call for young students of Art Nouveau, and to have a fringe theory given prominence on that page (especially when it makes such a major claim) is dangerous. I continue to hold my position that the claim should be removed until such a time that any established Art Historian writing on Gauguin or Mucha takes it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 ( talk) 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
With respect, in the answer to my initial posting on this talk page you write 'Results of examination indicate the possibility, our article reflects that'. I took this to mean that you were an author, or involved in the authorship of, the cited article about which we are in dispute. Is this the case or not?
Further to your latest comments: I am only to happy to the case made by experts in the fields relevant to the Wikipedia article on Mucha to be taken as the basis. The article is in the Art History field, and no expert in the Art History field has ever suggested or accepted any claim that Mucha plagiarised Gauguin in creating Gismonda. I respectfully maintain that any theory claiming he did is a fringe theory that has no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.168.181 ( talk) 13:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the third opinion.
As regards your request for sources: I have in my library the following books on Mucha and Gauguin, all published after the article in question. Not one of these books mentions the theory that Mucha plagiarised Gauguin in creating Gismonda. If the article had merit, I believe that History of Art professionals would have taken its claims up and examined them.
Alphonse Mucha: The Spirit of Art Nouveau (Victor Arwas, Yale, 1998) Alphonse Mucha (Sarah Mucha, Lincoln, 2006) Alphonse Mucha 1860-1939: Seduction, Modernity and Utopia (La Caixa, 2008) Gauguin Tahiti (Claire Fresche-Thory, MFA, 2004) Paul Gauguin: Artist of Myth and Dream (Stephen E. Eisenman, Skira, 2008)
I have also read 'Gauguin's Intimate Journals' and 'Paul Gauguin: Letters to his wife and friends'. In neither of these does Gauguin make any suggestion that Mucha plagiarised him.
I would love to have the chance to read the full article by Asmus, and see whether it addresses any of the concerns I brought up in my earlier comments. As someone who knows a fair amount about the History of Art, and particularly fin-de-siecle Paris, Asmus's claims do seem quite extraordinary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.248.90 ( talk) 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know the whereabouts of Mucha's full length portrait of "Mrs. Robert Leatherbee and her son Charles Leatherbee?" Mrs. Leatherbee was the daughter of Charles Richard Crane, Mucha's patron. Her maiden name was Frances Anita Crane. After her divorce from Leatherbee, she married Jan Masaryk, from whom she divorced in 1930. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrenrut ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
"...or from seeing his homeland invaded and overcome" though a nice sentiment, this is personal opinion, not fact. Perhaps someone should truncate this sentence. Asicmod ( talk) 09:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does anyone know where I might be able to order a poster-sized print of Dancel? It's an absolutely beautiful image, and I'd love to have it on my office wall. TIA. Microtonal... (Put your head on my shoulder) 03:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
We're going to delete Alfons Mucha's paintings from Commons. The copyright details are complicated,
It was decided to delete them as per the death of author + 70 years rule. It may still be admissible on English Wikipedia as per {{ PD-US}}. If you are interested in keeping them, you should move them to English Wikipedia. Thanks. Fred- Chess 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The 70 years were up on Jan. 1, 2010. See "Copyright" section below. The photos of the works may still be copyrighted, though. Enon ( talk) 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know what Mucha's religion was in relation to the religious paintings and drawings he created. -- Ethii 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Mucha was raised in a catholic family and was a freemason-- Georgius 11:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Carnavalet museum in Paris has the re-located decoration of an Art Nouveau jewelry shop, the design of which Mucha participated in. -- Error 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a cola ad on TV in North America where people run into a square. There's a banner that says "Aflons Mucha" in one scene. Does anyone know if this ad is filmed in Prague perhaps? Krupo 01:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
At the outbreak of the Second World War he was arrested and questioned by German occupiers.
No kidding. World War II started on September 1st. This chap died on July 14th. (But by that time Germany already did occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia).
Do change the sentence, someone.
I've removed the legal controversy section as it seemed only vaguely related to the subject matter and had absolutely no explanation as why it was there. If anyone can come up with a better reason for it being there then they can put it back in. -- WaterWolf 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And I've removed an allegation that someone else plagiarized Mucha's works, for similar reasons. (Also, it smelled like original research.) grendel| khan 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the issue of plagiarism of Mucha is mostly moot for works created after December 31, 2009, whether you go by Czech or French law. It has been over 70 years since his death, and all his works are out of copyright. (Photos, scans and databases of his work may still be in limited copyright, though. Works after 1923 may still have US copyright, if they were registered in the US and the term was renewed.) Companies using his work as a trademark are still protected against competitors using confusingly similar designs.
Czech law (I-11-5) does grant his family the right to insist that he be identified as the author of his works, even after the expiration of the copyright, but works which are merely similar rather than outright copies would probably not fall under this provision.
The French copyright situation is somewhat muddied by extensions to the copyright term for works during or before WWII or even greater for those during or before WWI, but these have been voided by the highest court in France for paintings, and the applicable term is life plus 70 years for Mucha's works which have French copyright. This machine translation of the French Wikipedia page lays out the law: Prorogations_de_guerre / (Copyright extensions of war) and this translation gives the text of the court judgement: 04-12138 Judgement No. 280 of February 27, 2007 Court of Cassation - First Civil Chamber
If anyone has some information indicating that Mucha's works are still under copyright, please respond. Enon ( talk) 04:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a statement that his works went out of copyright on 1/1/2010 in the "legacy" section. I contend that this is not OR because it simply involves adding 70 years + 1 day to the last day of the year in which he died. This calculation is clearly spelled out in the Czech laws referenced above and the other citations given. I did research to verify the correctness of this, but it was not original research, just verifying references. I looked for contrary data and found none, except as noted above, and those quibbles are close to OR, so I have left them for the talk page. If someone has a good source which contradicts this method of calculating the expiration of copyright, then please cut or change the assertion in the article, but please also lay out your reasoning here. Enon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC).
I have replaced the deleted line saying that A.M.'s works went out of copyright. It is obviously very important information about any artist's legacy whether or not the right to copy his works is in the public domain. While it may not be mentioned in other art articles, it should be, particularly when the passage into the public domain is recent or otherwise not obvious. Enon ( talk) 14:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I probably should have reverted the page, but I copied and pasted an older version over the vandalized part by oh-so-mature 164.58.145.60. Feel free to revert if I've messed something up. -- 144.91.50.183 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The full text of the paper by Asmus is available at http://www.datafilehost.com/download-a1b65bad.html Asmus is a highly respected scientist and technical expert. Fitzcantab ( talk) 03:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been in a dispute with ThuranX about the validity of a claim that Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda. I would appreciate a third party adjudicating on this matter. Below my arguments as per ThuranX's talk page:
Thanks for your care and attention in editing the Alphonse Mucha page. With reference to our discussion over edits, the theory that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda, the key Art Nouveau work, is a fringe theory. This is evidenced by the facts:
(a) that the theory was published in a journal unrelated to Art History studies (b) that despite the article being published 12 years ago, it has not been cited since in any Art History journal (c) that no literature on Paul Gauguin claims or suggests that Gauguin created the source work for Gismonda
Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories says that fringe theories 'describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study'. The evidence I have cited - particularly point (b) - proves this is the case with regard to the theory that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda. Moreover, the policy says 'If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia'. The facts I have set out in points (b) and (c) prove that the theory has not met notability requirements. As such, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
Given these facts, I respectfully suggest that the claim that Alphonse Mucha plagiarised Paul Gauguin in creating Gismonda is removed from the Wikipedia article about Alphonse Mucha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.62.88 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I believe that the reasons have remained consistent throughout. Mucha did not plagiarise Gismonda from a work by Gauguin, and the theory that he did is a fringe theory that has no place in an article on Mucha. I do not believe this is a whitewash.
Can you offer evidence that suggests that this plagiarism is not a fringe theory? i.e. secondary reliable sources commenting on, discussing or disparaging the theory? I would be happy to stand corrected if you are able to find such evidence. Until then, I respectfully suggest that the claim about plagiarism is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 ( talk)
Thanks for responding. I have not read your article in full as I cannot access it online. However, I have read the abstract, and I find the argument tenuous at various points. Perhaps you can clear up various matters to make a more convincing case:
1. Do you have any evidence that the collage of postage stamps predates Gismonda the Poster? The abstracts suggests that your evidence is that the collage is more detailed than the poster. But that in no way proves it is an earlier work. It is a major and illogical leap to go from 'the collage is more detailed than the poster' to 'the poster is a hasty photographic plagiarism of the intricate collage'.
2. Is there any evidence other than analysis of scratches to suggest that these were items that once belonged to Gauguin? For example, is there any evidence in Gauguin's letters that he had items stolen by Anna la Javanese, and that these items were amongst them? In the absence of such supporting evidence, it is a large leap to go from 'there are similar scratches on these two items in an estate sale' to 'these items definitely belonged to Paul Gauguin'. Therefore, to go from similarities in scratches to a reattribution of a major work in the History of Art is tenuous.
3. While Anna la Javanese modelled for Mucha, there is no evidence that suggests she was his lover (Mucha was not averse to taking lovers of his models, as with Berthe de Lalande, but when he did there is considerable evidence). Given that she was not his lover, the claim that she stole items from one lover to give to another to copy is invalid.
4. Mucha was an extensive photographer, and an inveterate hoarder of his photographs. To my knowledge, there are no extant photographs that Mucha took that are photographs of the collage that you describe. Could you provide evidence of such a photograph existing that Mucha took of the collage that would amount to a 'hasty photographic plagiarism'?
4. There is no evidence in the letters either of Mucha or of Gauguin that either of them believed that Mucha plagiarised Gismonda. Mucha and Gauguin were good friends. At the time when Mucha became famous, Gauguin was still an artist who had struggled hard and on the whole unsuccessfully for recognition. It is hard to believe that they would have continued to be friends had Mucha got rich (as he did following Gismonda) by plagiarising Gauguin's work.
In your response to my initial notes, you say that your techniques have been developed 'to aid art historians in examining a pre-existing question of plagarism'. Could you cite any instance that proves this Mucha-Gauguin is a pre-existing question of plagiarism? The only evidence I have ever seen for it is the abstract for your article. You also say 'NO art historian is likely to cite the technical side article when they can cite the conclusions'. Whether that is true or not, no Art Historian has cited the conclusion of the article since its publication twelve years ago.
In the light of all this, I respectfully maintain that this is a fringe argument, and without further evidence to justify the major logical leaps it takes, a tenuous argument. The Mucha wikipedia page is the first port of call for young students of Art Nouveau, and to have a fringe theory given prominence on that page (especially when it makes such a major claim) is dangerous. I continue to hold my position that the claim should be removed until such a time that any established Art Historian writing on Gauguin or Mucha takes it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.198.189 ( talk) 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
With respect, in the answer to my initial posting on this talk page you write 'Results of examination indicate the possibility, our article reflects that'. I took this to mean that you were an author, or involved in the authorship of, the cited article about which we are in dispute. Is this the case or not?
Further to your latest comments: I am only to happy to the case made by experts in the fields relevant to the Wikipedia article on Mucha to be taken as the basis. The article is in the Art History field, and no expert in the Art History field has ever suggested or accepted any claim that Mucha plagiarised Gauguin in creating Gismonda. I respectfully maintain that any theory claiming he did is a fringe theory that has no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.168.181 ( talk) 13:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the third opinion.
As regards your request for sources: I have in my library the following books on Mucha and Gauguin, all published after the article in question. Not one of these books mentions the theory that Mucha plagiarised Gauguin in creating Gismonda. If the article had merit, I believe that History of Art professionals would have taken its claims up and examined them.
Alphonse Mucha: The Spirit of Art Nouveau (Victor Arwas, Yale, 1998) Alphonse Mucha (Sarah Mucha, Lincoln, 2006) Alphonse Mucha 1860-1939: Seduction, Modernity and Utopia (La Caixa, 2008) Gauguin Tahiti (Claire Fresche-Thory, MFA, 2004) Paul Gauguin: Artist of Myth and Dream (Stephen E. Eisenman, Skira, 2008)
I have also read 'Gauguin's Intimate Journals' and 'Paul Gauguin: Letters to his wife and friends'. In neither of these does Gauguin make any suggestion that Mucha plagiarised him.
I would love to have the chance to read the full article by Asmus, and see whether it addresses any of the concerns I brought up in my earlier comments. As someone who knows a fair amount about the History of Art, and particularly fin-de-siecle Paris, Asmus's claims do seem quite extraordinary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.248.90 ( talk) 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know the whereabouts of Mucha's full length portrait of "Mrs. Robert Leatherbee and her son Charles Leatherbee?" Mrs. Leatherbee was the daughter of Charles Richard Crane, Mucha's patron. Her maiden name was Frances Anita Crane. After her divorce from Leatherbee, she married Jan Masaryk, from whom she divorced in 1930. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrenrut ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
"...or from seeing his homeland invaded and overcome" though a nice sentiment, this is personal opinion, not fact. Perhaps someone should truncate this sentence. Asicmod ( talk) 09:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)