Commons:Requests for comment/When does PDART apply to textile works

Specifically, can the image linked from [1] (showing the remnants of a flag from 1854) be considered to be in the public domain per COM:PDART, or does the museum regain copyright through the choice of framing, lighting, and the work involved in creating that photograph? This question has arisen at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theeurekaflag.jpg; see there for some arguments for and against applying PDART to it. It is unclear both if textile works would be closer to a flat canvas (2D, OK) or an old coin (3D, not OK), and what the threshold of originality should be.

Some background: The PDART policy states that some photographs can not themselves be copyrighted, if they are faithful reproduction of an old, public domain, two-dimensional work of art. The policy further explains what is meant by that, stating: When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted. This is typically the case for photographs of three-dimensional objects, hence the rule of thumb that "2D is OK, 3D is not". Renerpho (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The wording and title of this RfC are problematic, as there is no "correct license for photographs of old textile works". It depends completely on the content of the photograph, especially the nature of the textile, and how it is presented and photographed. I'm reluctant to comment further, as I'm afraid whatever I say may be construed as a precedent for establishing a "correct license for photographs of old textile works" or whether or not "PDART applies to textile works". Would it be possible to recreate this RfC with a different focus? Like maybe Commons:Requests for comment/When does PDART apply to textile works. Nosferattus (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: I've moved it to the title you suggested, and removed the first sentence that you marked as problematic. Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The main question involved in this issue is whether or not there were creative decisions involved in creating the photograph. If the textile is presented in a 3-dimensional way (e.g. File:2008-04-05 (London, Petrie and British Library) - 078.jpg) it will almost certainly result in a copyright-protected photo. If the textile is presented exclusively in 2-D, as in this case, it could go either way. If it seems like the lighting or arrangement of the textile involves creative choices, PD-Art would not be appropriate. In this specific case, which is a borderline case, I would argue that the lighting and arrangement were not "creative" choices, but were simply decided in order to neutrally present the flag as close to its original appearance as possible. So personally, I think PD-Art would be applicable in this case, but I imagine some may have different opinions. Nosferattus (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)