Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museu Valencia de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
File:Museu_Valencia_de_la_Il·lustració_i_la_Modernitat,_interior.JPG[edit]
work by another person shown: when did the artist of the small photos (with white frames) die? Saibo (Δ) 14:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - COM:FOP#Spain - Jcb (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
File:Museu_Valencia_de_la_Il·lustració_i_la_Modernitat,_interior.JPG[edit]
Contrary to the last DR closure (kept with the reason FOP) it seems that FOP in Spain does not apply to interiours of buildings. This is the case here (see filename). Photos are a too prominent part of this phooto / file to be de minimis ... Saibo (Δ) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, it's just not specified in the Spanish law. Public space located inside a building is not excluded. Jcb (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- According to this image inside is not included. According to the translated law "parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares" it sounds like more outside. However - could be - that inside of public buildings is included. But as long as we do not have a clear knowledge that it is allowed we need to delete the images per COM:PRP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't invoke the precautionary principle -- that is not for any bit of doubt that someone can conjure up; it is more for situations where there is genuine debate in the legal world (or, trying to keep based on presuming that someone would not care about defending a copyright which would obviously exist). I would definitely not apply the Spanish law to any separate work located inside a building -- there is nothing in the wording to support that. But, there is nothing in the law which differentiates the interior versus exterior of an architectural work, and countries which do seem to always specify that in their law, and Spain does not. Besides which, this is primarily a picture of the floor -- can't fathom how this would be derivative of an architect's work even if that was an issue. To me the main issue is if this is a derivative of the other works seen in the photo.... and I don't think so; I think those are more de minimis.
Keep on this one, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment Carl! However, I am astonished that you walk on the thin ice of de minimis in this case. I have not assumed it: The photos are the center point of the image and nearly the whole image consists of these arrangement of photos.
- If I understand you correctly you would not apply FOP on works inside of buildings (like it is possible in public buildings in Austria). It would be nice to have this clarification underlined by some court decision or so in our FOP help page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the photos themselves in this case are de minimis. No single one of them is the focal point -- rather it is on the entire display. A photographer does not gain a copyright on the entire area it is displayed in, to me (which is what a French court case ruled at one point, as well, though that was about the Louvre plaza -- a photo of the entire plaza is not a derivative work of the pyramid there, since it is unavoidable, even if it is a significant part of that overall photo -- just photos focusing on the pyramid itself are an issue). Likewise, a photo of a city skyline is not a derivative of the architectural copyright in any one of the individual buildings. Thus, I think a photo focusing on one of those portraits in particular would not be OK, but to me that isn't the point of this shot, and I don't think any of those photographers would have a claim on this shot, which is about the entire area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm.. I think all photos together in this arrangement could belong together (see the similar face shots - seems to depict a series of a man wearing different beards or time slices in his life). Then, the photo clearly "focuses" the artwork (the set of photos) and our photographer simply has bad luck if you wants to photographs the floor of the building... I do not like if we praise images as free if they in fact are not. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you are claiming that all the photos, the white platforms they are mounted on, and the arrangement of them are all the work of one artist.... then maybe. But that seems rather unlikely (I would presume this is more often arranged by the museum, and done to make effective, utilitarian viewing at ground level, not trying to make a work of art viewable from above). I too share your dislike of claiming things are free when they are not, but I have an equal dislike of claiming things are "unfree" when they are in fact fine, so I try to find a balance. Given the history of copyright and people testing boundaries, there are usually court cases which give us some idea of where some boundaries are. If we can't find any court case remotely like it, that is a strong indicator that this type of thing is fine (i.e. probably outside those boundary lines). Particularly in this case, where the closest relative case I can think off of the top of my head slanted towards this type of thing being OK. They differentiated between a work designed to communicate the underlying work to the public, and when it is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". This is at COM:FOP#France, but seems somewhat applicable here (granted, different country, so not directly applicable). To me, the main subject is the the general scene in the museum, without any focus on the individual photos at all, other than they happened to be the displayed works at the time. This photo is not effective whatsoever, to me, at duplicating or even illustrating those photos. I prefer to have some concrete backing (i.e. a court decision, or at least a court case where the defendant had to settle) which shows there may be a legitimate interest of another author present when we go and delete people's volunteer work here. Especially here, where there is an actual court decision which instead hints this is quite likely OK. If you are aware of some similar court cases (even in other countries), that can always change things of course -- please mention them if you are aware of stuff I'm not ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was just thinking: If making such a photograph to show a set/series of copyrighted photos by a photographer would be possible some people here would be happy. It would be great to illustrate an article of the person because probably no other depictions of his work are free. If this photo would be used like this we would certainly not want to host it here claiming it is free - totally free.
- However, I do not know if there photographs are copyrighted or not - but they to not look like PD-old-70 for me. If we keep this picture just to illustrate the boring architecture of the museum then we would need a copyright tag which says "just to illustrate the museum - you are not allowed to refer to the set of works depicted". In general: a template to tag de minimis images would be useful for users of the image. Otherwise our license templates give the wrong impression since de minimis is a copyright thing - not as personality rights a completely different type of law. But even for personality rights we have a template.
- Referring to Commons:De_minimis#An_example_under_Civil_Law: these photographs here are not impossible to avoid if you like to photograph the building. You just have to wait a month until the exhibition is gone.
- No - I do not know court cases directly related to this. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- They wouldn't be illustrating the photographs; they would be illustrating a museum display. I think it would be OK to use on the artist's page; mainly to just show that his art was good enough to merit a display like that in a museum (it's certainly not a good illustration to get a feel for the photographs themselves, which is the main de minimis point). It's not really to illustrate the architecture of the museum; it's to show a little bit of the inside of the museum to get a feel for the atmosphere. You don't need to wait for the copyright to expire on the Louvre pyramid to take a picture of the plaza it's in; you shouldn't have to wait for these works to be moved to take a picture of the room they are in. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- So this picture cannot be used for illustrating the kind of works an artists does? Then tell me why several images of the place (not the pyramid of course - since all off them rely on de minimis) pefectly depict the article en:Louvre Pyramid? ;-)
- How long do I need to wait for artworks to be moved away if I want to take an picture? ;) Only Minutes and hours but not weeks? Bad de minimis laws... totally unclear.
- Thanks again for your time in this discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be a lousy way to illustrate the works themselves. If you crop it to focus on one, that would not be OK. To me the photo is only good to demonstrate how the works were displayed, so if that is still useful in the artist's article, then great. The images of the Louvre plaza do depict the pyramid, sure -- they depict the entire surrounding it is in, which does help with the pyramid article sure, but is still fine -- it is depicting significantly more than just the object itself. The French court case indicated those photos are fine even in France, but a crop of just the pyramid would not be. [Also note that en-wiki follows the law of the United States specifically, where photographs of architectural works are not generally considered derivative works, so even the bottom photo could be fine there.] Not sure what you are asking about minutes and weeks; you shouldn't need to wait at all to take a photo. Provided the resulting photo only makes de minimis use of the displayed photographs, you are free to distribute your photo without the original photographer's permission. That determination is made photo by photo; if the next picture you take is focusing on one of the displayed works of art, it'd be best to keep that for personal use only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- They wouldn't be illustrating the photographs; they would be illustrating a museum display. I think it would be OK to use on the artist's page; mainly to just show that his art was good enough to merit a display like that in a museum (it's certainly not a good illustration to get a feel for the photographs themselves, which is the main de minimis point). It's not really to illustrate the architecture of the museum; it's to show a little bit of the inside of the museum to get a feel for the atmosphere. You don't need to wait for the copyright to expire on the Louvre pyramid to take a picture of the plaza it's in; you shouldn't have to wait for these works to be moved to take a picture of the room they are in. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you are claiming that all the photos, the white platforms they are mounted on, and the arrangement of them are all the work of one artist.... then maybe. But that seems rather unlikely (I would presume this is more often arranged by the museum, and done to make effective, utilitarian viewing at ground level, not trying to make a work of art viewable from above). I too share your dislike of claiming things are free when they are not, but I have an equal dislike of claiming things are "unfree" when they are in fact fine, so I try to find a balance. Given the history of copyright and people testing boundaries, there are usually court cases which give us some idea of where some boundaries are. If we can't find any court case remotely like it, that is a strong indicator that this type of thing is fine (i.e. probably outside those boundary lines). Particularly in this case, where the closest relative case I can think off of the top of my head slanted towards this type of thing being OK. They differentiated between a work designed to communicate the underlying work to the public, and when it is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". This is at COM:FOP#France, but seems somewhat applicable here (granted, different country, so not directly applicable). To me, the main subject is the the general scene in the museum, without any focus on the individual photos at all, other than they happened to be the displayed works at the time. This photo is not effective whatsoever, to me, at duplicating or even illustrating those photos. I prefer to have some concrete backing (i.e. a court decision, or at least a court case where the defendant had to settle) which shows there may be a legitimate interest of another author present when we go and delete people's volunteer work here. Especially here, where there is an actual court decision which instead hints this is quite likely OK. If you are aware of some similar court cases (even in other countries), that can always change things of course -- please mention them if you are aware of stuff I'm not ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't invoke the precautionary principle -- that is not for any bit of doubt that someone can conjure up; it is more for situations where there is genuine debate in the legal world (or, trying to keep based on presuming that someone would not care about defending a copyright which would obviously exist). I would definitely not apply the Spanish law to any separate work located inside a building -- there is nothing in the wording to support that. But, there is nothing in the law which differentiates the interior versus exterior of an architectural work, and countries which do seem to always specify that in their law, and Spain does not. Besides which, this is primarily a picture of the floor -- can't fathom how this would be derivative of an architect's work even if that was an issue. To me the main issue is if this is a derivative of the other works seen in the photo.... and I don't think so; I think those are more de minimis.
- According to this image inside is not included. According to the translated law "parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares" it sounds like more outside. However - could be - that inside of public buildings is included. But as long as we do not have a clear knowledge that it is allowed we need to delete the images per COM:PRP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept as per Carl Lindberg. The photos are de minimis here. Yann (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
