Original - An elaborate
sandsculpting display at the Sand Sculpting Australia "Dinostory" festival
Reason
Long ago we had an FP of sandcastles that was sadly delisted for various issues. I think this is a worthy successor. Good quality, high interest, good composition for a busy scene. I particularly like how the
Sand art and play article is illustrated in this picture by having the sand children playing to create the sand art dinosaurs.
Unlikely, given sandsculptures aren't permanent for obvious reasons. I don't know a lot about legalities, but for what it's worth they certainly stated no restrictions on photography or use of said photos in any way at the festival (and I did look to see). MER-C may know more if he drifts by. Presumably a photo of a sandcastle on the beach would also be a copyvio in this case, unless I built it myself? Anyway, if you want to see if you can get it deleted, go ahead. --
jjron (
talk)
08:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Here is an interesting nuance from
the Commons page: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." --
jjron (
talk)
08:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that's a fairly sensible interpretation. It doesn't seem to be about how long the work will 'last', it's just about whether the intention was to move it to a non-public location during the life of the work, and that is clearly not possible for a sand sculpture. That said, how do you confirm intentions after the event, short of asking the artist (and even then, one can be disingenuous about the original intentions if it wasn't explicitly stated at the time of public presentation)? It might be obvious in this case, but it leaves the line drawn rather ambiguously for other works.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs)10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Alright, you guys have convinced me. The interpretation given above seems plausible, although I have to say it's anyone's guess as to how the law might actually get interpreted if the sculpture were to object. Changing to neutral for now.
Kaldari (
talk)
15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support pending the copyright issue. DEFINITELY featured quality image, the only question is the copyright status (obviously I oppose if it's not a free image). What an odd little gap in copyright law, not a permanent statue but a statue nonetheless. Because it's not permanent is there a chance the original artist cannot claim copyright (and thus this image, freely released by the photographer, is free?)
Staxringoldtalkcontribs18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Again pending the copyright issue. I love this picture, it's a fantastic medium and the picture really conveys the fun that you get from seeing these along the beach. Hope we can resolve the copyright issue.
Silvestra (
talk)
23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Well sand varies in colour. And it's hard to know for sure, sand is a bit like snow, it can be hard to get right and it comes up differently depending on how the sun hits it, etc. The photos I took there even show considerable variation. For the record, in this case I tried to match the sand colour to the colours on an 'official' promotional brochure for the festival by
Frankston City that I picked up at the time, assuming they would have tried to get it right. --
jjron (
talk)
07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Per "Good sand sculpture sand is somewhat dirty, having silt and clay that helps lock the irregular shaped sand grains together.". So it is probably just darker sand.
Noodle snacks (
talk)
11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Original - An elaborate
sandsculpting display at the Sand Sculpting Australia "Dinostory" festival
Reason
Long ago we had an FP of sandcastles that was sadly delisted for various issues. I think this is a worthy successor. Good quality, high interest, good composition for a busy scene. I particularly like how the
Sand art and play article is illustrated in this picture by having the sand children playing to create the sand art dinosaurs.
Unlikely, given sandsculptures aren't permanent for obvious reasons. I don't know a lot about legalities, but for what it's worth they certainly stated no restrictions on photography or use of said photos in any way at the festival (and I did look to see). MER-C may know more if he drifts by. Presumably a photo of a sandcastle on the beach would also be a copyvio in this case, unless I built it myself? Anyway, if you want to see if you can get it deleted, go ahead. --
jjron (
talk)
08:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Here is an interesting nuance from
the Commons page: "Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent"." --
jjron (
talk)
08:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that's a fairly sensible interpretation. It doesn't seem to be about how long the work will 'last', it's just about whether the intention was to move it to a non-public location during the life of the work, and that is clearly not possible for a sand sculpture. That said, how do you confirm intentions after the event, short of asking the artist (and even then, one can be disingenuous about the original intentions if it wasn't explicitly stated at the time of public presentation)? It might be obvious in this case, but it leaves the line drawn rather ambiguously for other works.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs)10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Alright, you guys have convinced me. The interpretation given above seems plausible, although I have to say it's anyone's guess as to how the law might actually get interpreted if the sculpture were to object. Changing to neutral for now.
Kaldari (
talk)
15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support pending the copyright issue. DEFINITELY featured quality image, the only question is the copyright status (obviously I oppose if it's not a free image). What an odd little gap in copyright law, not a permanent statue but a statue nonetheless. Because it's not permanent is there a chance the original artist cannot claim copyright (and thus this image, freely released by the photographer, is free?)
Staxringoldtalkcontribs18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Again pending the copyright issue. I love this picture, it's a fantastic medium and the picture really conveys the fun that you get from seeing these along the beach. Hope we can resolve the copyright issue.
Silvestra (
talk)
23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Well sand varies in colour. And it's hard to know for sure, sand is a bit like snow, it can be hard to get right and it comes up differently depending on how the sun hits it, etc. The photos I took there even show considerable variation. For the record, in this case I tried to match the sand colour to the colours on an 'official' promotional brochure for the festival by
Frankston City that I picked up at the time, assuming they would have tried to get it right. --
jjron (
talk)
07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Per "Good sand sculpture sand is somewhat dirty, having silt and clay that helps lock the irregular shaped sand grains together.". So it is probably just darker sand.
Noodle snacks (
talk)
11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)reply