Talk:Q17537576
Autodescription — creative work (Q17537576)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “creative work” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
creative work⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
So now, as the labels have been morphed from "artistic work" to the more general (I think) "creative work" in all languages, ist there still a distinction from work (Q386724) and how is now the relation with intellectual work (Q15621286)? -- Gymel (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- For me it is clear that there exists such works (as phone book, for example) which are not Q17537576. And of course creativity can lead to physical objects (like paintings or dolls) which are not Q15621286.--Infovarius (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- The format of phone book and address book is creative. Indeed, the painting and dolls are some kinds of work. Furthermore, as stated in Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#作品 really means "Creative work" , "作品" means "創作成品", and thus "創作" means "Creative" and "成品" means "work". UU (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
work of art[edit]
Q17537576 is "work of art", and work of art (Q838948) is "work of art". Which item is more "work of art"? --Fractaler (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
subclass of intellectual work (Q15621286)[edit]
@Infovarius: I don't think that pictures of menstrual blood are a good counterexample. I find it difficult to consider those pictures creative works without assuming some thought and perception behind them (e.g. a message or some kind of arrangement), so I would only deny that they are intellectual works if I would deny that they are creative works, too. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Valentina.Anitnelav: sorry, may be I was not specific. Look, for example, at the art of Milo Moiré (Q16664555). I would not name her performances and paintings with eggs "intellectual" but they quite "creative". --Infovarius (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Infovarius:, I would call her performances and paintings "intellectual" in the meanings associated with its use in intellectual work (Q15621286) and intellectual property (Q131257). It is a "work created through human thought and perception". There is human thought behind it (one could think of this as dealing with the topic of art as a form of birth giving). And perception (she chose to express this idea in a performance involving her vagina, paint-filled eggs and canvas). Copyright (the rights given to a creator of a creative work) is a form of intellectual property (at least according to the English (en:Intellectual_property) and German article). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is too vague and counter-intuitive so I still not sure. But do as you wish if you understand what you are doing. --Infovarius (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Infovarius:, I would call her performances and paintings "intellectual" in the meanings associated with its use in intellectual work (Q15621286) and intellectual property (Q131257). It is a "work created through human thought and perception". There is human thought behind it (one could think of this as dealing with the topic of art as a form of birth giving). And perception (she chose to express this idea in a performance involving her vagina, paint-filled eggs and canvas). Copyright (the rights given to a creator of a creative work) is a form of intellectual property (at least according to the English (en:Intellectual_property) and German article). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)