Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ready-mades by Marcel Duchamp

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Ready-mades by Marcel Duchamp

Ready-mades are conceptual works of art entitled to copyright protection (cf. [1] and [2]).

— Racconish ^💬 15:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings - Let me say at the start: I am not any kind of lawyer and don't claim to understand US copyright law. But here is my rationale for the pieces that I uploaded. They seem to have been "published" in the US before 1925, and so not subject to copyright restrictions. “Publication” is (for me) hard to understand in US law. As I have read "Under copyright law, a work is published if copies of the work have been made available to the public." Simply exhibiting the work in a museum is not "publication" but apparently sale of a work is. Thus if the original was sold, the copyright starts on that date, both for the original and its copies. I'm sorry if this is not clear, but the law itself seems very unclear - and I am certainly no lawyer. Anyway, that is why I thought the works were now in the public domain. If I'm wrong, well, that's life!

Personally I would hope some good Wikipedian lawyer would figure this all out. with all best wishes, Daderot (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And thank you for your very interesting references about "Ready-mades are conceptual works of art entitled to copyright protection". Both are articles making that argument, but neither is a legal judgment. In fact, both seem to claim that the laws run against copyrighting ready-mades. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that the US law here seems very unclear to me. Daderot (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please bear in mind these works are French and French copyright law applies here, which is more protective of the expression of the artist's intent than US and UK copyright law. — Racconish ^💬 20:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my understanding that US law is relevant to only a small number of Duchamp's works, specifically those he created while he was in the USA in the 1910s and published there (that is to say photographed and the photo printed in US magazines or other media) at the time. Otherwise, copyright law of France applies to Duchamp's works. So, unless a specific Duchamp work can be demonstrated be free licensed for some specific reason, I believe it remains under copyright until 2039. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to unpack here. Firstly, why the assumption that these works are French? Two of these (Comb and Hat Rack) were created while Duchamp lived in New York. The country of first publication may be hard to nail down, but I don't know how anyone is jumping to the conclusion that it's France without some deep research. Secondly, where's the policy that says we apply the threshold of originality of the source country and not the U.S.? If that were true, then a lot of {{PD-Art}} files would be out the window. Thirdly, where do we get the idea that these works exceed France's threshold of originality? COM:TOO France says that France has a "slightly higher threshold of originality" and requires that the work bears the "imprint of the personality of the author". Most of these works are items that were bought off the store shelf, so how could they meet that standard?

It's informative to consider the words of Duchamp's own estate's lawyer. In a cease-and-desist letter regarding reproduction of a chess set designed by Duchamp, they draw a contrast between an original work, like the chess set, and a ready-made, "an object diverted from its initial function in order to be presented as a work of art". The implication being, if the reproduced work were one of the ready-mades, we wouldn't be claiming copyrightability. Toohool (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further information on the countries of origin these works, from the catalogues raisonnes of Duchamp's work by Lebel, Clair, and Schwarz:

For 3 of these works (Comb, Hat Rack, and Bicycle Wheel), the photos of them included in the Boite en valise are apparently the first publication, as there is no earlier exhibition or reproduction listed. Boite en valise was prepared by Duchamp in Paris from 1938 onward, but he did not complete it and start distributing until after he returned to New York in 1941. That would make these U.S. works.

A photo of Bottle Rack was published in Cahiers d'Art in Paris in 1936, and 50 cc of Paris Air was published in a postcard series by Georges Hugnet in Paris in 1937, making these French works. Toohool (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One correction to the above: Lebel actually lists an earlier publication of Comb, on the cover of Transition magazine in 1937. Lebel lists this as a Paris publication, as does the Wikipedia article on Transition, but most of the sources I found online list this issue as published in New York. Transition: The History of a Literary Era, page 70, confirms that this was one of 3 issues published in New York. So this buttresses Comb as a work of U.S. origin.

Keep (in case my position weren't already apparent). The two French works, Bottle Rack and 50 cc of Paris Air, are pure readymades, items bought off the shelf and declared to be art, without modification (except for a signature on Bottle Rack, but it's not even visible in these photos). They can't meet even the French standard of bearing the "imprint of the personality of the author". Of the three U.S. works, one of them, Bicycle Wheel, might be able to meet the French standard, as Duchamp made the artistic choice of how to combine two objects (bicycle wheel & stool) together. But it doesn't rise to the U.S. threshold of originality, and neither do the two other U.S. works that are pure readymades, Comb and Hat Rack. Toohool (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as a general matter). The first article given above is made by this man’s estate, and is thus not a reliable source for the idea that they have any such exclusive rights. The second article actually argues against that proposition, in explaining that some of Duchamp’s work product would not be copyrighted, despite his claim of them as “art.” I’m not well versed on French copyright law in relation to functional works (and the threshold of originality), but absent any surprise on that front, these objects are in the public domain. That some man considered them to be “art” is not relevant, as they were not copyrightable upon publication. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: General consensus is that none of these works is above COM:TOO in its respective country of origin. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]