Talk:Madame Tussauds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of museums. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, and see a list of list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

The autobiografie is not availlable in a library near me, so I can't look it up in there. The data for this article was gleaned from many internet sites. I tried to judge the quality of each, but it would be nice to check the dates and places with something authoritive --User:Sander123 2 Dec 2003

The encyclopedia Britanica list 1 december. I've changed the date --User:Sander123 12 Dec 2003

---

This article is almost entirely about the person and not the places. Shouldn't it be changed to Marie Tussaud? RickK 22:39, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Rick, how about copying the page (minus the image) into a new page 'Marie Tuassaud', and writing a new page for the waxwork museums? Grunners 04:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I have made an initial effort at the separation. Jay 15:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 list of wax figures 2 about the wax figures 3 Dalai Lama 4 does somebody know? 5 Al pacino Waxwork? 6 World Leaders 7 Why is there no discussion about how sculptures are made? 8 Joan of Arc? 9 In London, I doubt there would be Jackie Kennedy Onassis without JFK 10 Free images? 11 Wrong dates of birth and death?

[edit] list of wax figures

the list of wax figures seems a bit incomplete... :/ --68.222.22.68 04:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about the wax figures

• Are there still any Madame Tussaud's original wax figures especially the death masks?
• Do they rebuild a popular figure's wax figure after he/she becomes older?
• How often do they recreate a historical figure's wax figure from an old mold? I think very important persons such as George Washington will be on display for years to come.

I think this article should talk more about the museum. -- Toytoy 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalai Lama

This picture of the Lama is not a waxwork but the real thing! Who put it in there?

[edit] does somebody know?

Could somebody tell how many figures are there altogether? and what is the area of Madame Tussauds?

Well first off, it's hard to measure that at one time because the group is constantly coming out with new figures and trading them among one another

[edit] Al pacino Waxwork?

is there a al pacino waxwork anywhere. Millm0w 10:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Leaders

Princess Diana and the Queen Mum were world leaders? Eh?

[edit] Why is there no discussion about how sculptures are made?

I'm very interested in knowing the process one has to go through when a sculpture is made of them? How accurate are the sculptures? Do they reflect the exact size and shape of every aspect of a person's body. If so are exact measurements taken? Needshape 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joan of Arc?

isn't she one of the figures at Madame Tussaud Wax? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.162.14 (talk) 11:44, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In London, I doubt there would be Jackie Kennedy Onassis without JFK

This list says Jackie was a figure in the London Madame Tussauds, but not JFK. I highly doubt they would have it that way. --RandomOrca2 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free images?

Are photos of the wax statues free? It's a photo of a piece of copyrighted artwork, so even if you take a photo, can you release it under a free license? James086^{Talk | Email} 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As a saying goes: "A picture speaks a thousand words" but I recently observed that u have nominated 11 images taken of the wax figurines to be deleted as per [1] (dated 16 Oct 2007) under the blanket justification of "It is a derivative work of a copyrighted statue", even though the photos were taken personally by the contributors on-site. If one is to follow strictly on such rationale, does that mean if anyone takes a pix of one own's car, a mp3 player or the Sydney Opera House, one should one write in to eg. Toyota, Apple or the mayor of Sydney for its permission then? If that's the case, I think the 3 building pix in the article itself should be nominated for deletion too and many more in Wikipedia for fairness & consistency. -- Aldwinteo 16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a freedom of panorama for images of buildings. Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ has some info on derivative works. I would say the photos are clearly derivative works of the statues, which are on private property and not visible from a public place. This may help. Secretlondon 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also this and the next 2 sections are what made me decide to nominate the images. If you took a photo of your car, yes the shape and design of the car are copyrighted, but because the car is not a work of art (ie it isn't made just to be looked at, it can be driven aswell) the photo can be licensed as you choose. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If photography is allowed in a space to which the public has access, then surely any rights to the images are abrogated to the picture taker? The images are of true likenesses of the original, so then the copyright is derived from the person whose image it is, being in a public space. Sorry, I don't understand American law, but that would be the case under English law, ie it's fair game. Kbthompson 00:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • According to our policy, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images, "Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The main reason why I brought this issue up, is to ensure that there's a due process in communication and accountability among the parties concerned, are done in a constructive manner to ensure that Wikipedia informational value is not compromised for the common good in the long run. As I've visited 2 Madame Tussauds outlets before, I've not encountered any written notices nor its brochures prohibiting photography on site (If so, that wld take out the fun in the 1st place!). As such, it would be 'implied' that any rights to the images are abrogated to the picture taker to any casual observer (Sorry, I'm more familiar with the English and Singapore law). I also observed that the listed images, all of which are half-body shots, were not scanned images nor were they lifted directly from Madame Tussauds website, but were tagged with proper declaration ('Self Made') & some even uploaded wholesale with technical camera summary on the photo page itself. Whether on this issue or similar cases, I hope some form of common sense, fair play and constructive options have being fully explored & exercised prior to such enforcement (in which I've encountered much of late) unless there's a imminent legal challenge ('show cause'), precedent, or blatant copyright infringements. IMHO -- Aldwinteo 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From Wikimedia Commons (link)."Photographs of copyrighted, non-free two- or three-dimensional works of art must not be uploaded to Commons. Pictures of copyrighted three-dimensional works of art are called derivative works, while pictures of two-dimensional works of art are called reproductions. Examples of derivative works include pictures of sculptures, action figures and other copyrighted works." So the images aren't free unless the statues aren't copyrighted. We could contact them and ask if they are copyrighted and if they are, we could ask for them to release the copyright over images of their statues. The "legal" sections of their sites don't mention the statues, they only refer to the actual websites [2], although on the New York site they encourage visitors to email their photos to them so perhaps they would allow PD/GFDL/CC images of their statues. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a conflict, but I can accept the Commons text as being more detailed. If you read farther in the Commons page you link to, however, you will see that the United Kingdom, at least, has full Freedom of Panorama, which includes sculptures in places accessible to the public. Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is much broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of * buildings, and * sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public). without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way. So the London statues are fine; the Vegas ones may not be. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice find. I have removed their tags and from the deletion page. I also took down Image:Andy Lau MTHK.jpg as it is now tagged as fair use. The only one left is Image:Yoko Ono Sculpture.JPG. I'm going to email Madame Tussauds and ask if they are willing to allow photos of their images to be licensed as the photographer chooses. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely replies & follow-up action mate. -- Aldwinteo 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, in the back of my mind I was hoping I was wrong; the images really add to the article I think. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an email asking if they allow free licensing of photos of their statues, and if not could they. Hopefully I'll get a reply soon. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong dates of birth and death?

Ellena Herchert (1995–2067) - these dates in the current page are obviously wrong. There seems to be a more plausible date range in the history of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pklala (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

hej hej —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.98.12 (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)