Commons:Deletion requests/Image:2006mai saffig 023.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Image:2006mai_saffig_023.jpg

[edit]

Image displays a non-permanent map and advertising in a permanently installed holder, where the maps is the main subject of the photograph. The image was taken in Germany and the uploader claims that he can free the image and be sole copyright holder. I think this is a too free perception of FoP. Siebrand 06:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • German law makes no distinction between 2d works and 3d works, merely saying "works" in the relevant section of law. Also, the permanence is for the expected lifetime of the object in question, and while I do not know the details of this map, it is my general experience that these things that get posted get left for years, until they are replaced as unserviceable and thrown away. Surely this is permanent for the expected lifetime of the work? -Nard 11:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So based on that photograph, I can create a new map and sell that as a competing supplier, and not get sued in any way as I can claim FoP and permanently installed? (just to be sure as that would be hard to understand for me) Siebrand 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The map is installed permanently (see Schricker, Urheberrecht and the German WP article on Panoramafreiheit). Examples for works are according the relevant legal literature (commentaries to the UrhG): sculpures, poems.

The unwritten condition for FOP is that the work is installed legally (e.g. purchased or copied with consent of the creator). One cannot put a copy of a protected sculpture in his garden and claim FOP.

German FOP allows no derivate works (this is accepted in the German WP) thus one cannot create a new map based on the photo --Historiograf 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think you are stretching the boundaries of FoP too wide. Your description is Ortsplan Saffig and it is the main subject of your image. If the image would have had a broader frame, it would have been allowed in my view. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Siebrand (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, the map is clearly not permanently installed. It is visibly mounted in a frame and behind glass of the type facilitating replacement of the item displayed, and it contains advertisements which are obviously prone to become outdated and which are thus intended to be replaced. Secondly, Commons only accepts content which anyone may use, modify, and redistribute for free or for profit. If German FOP does not permit modification of the work, it should not be invoked when uploading to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nobody has addressed my concern. We have pictures of ice sculptures. They are permanent for the life of the work. If the map and ads change, then the work has gone past the expected lifetime and is replaced. The person who puts the work in the case knows the expected lifetime and it is permanent for that lifetime, yes? -Nard 00:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't consider ice sculptures to be permanent. I find "for the expected lifetime of the work" to be a very creative definition of "permanent," but if that's the law in Germany, so be it. I still don't think that maps and advertisements that are replaced frequently, not because of the natural decay of their physical material, but because of the limited-time value of its contents, is permanent even under this definition. By that reasoning, tabloid news bills are effectively in the public domain too. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I see, thank you. I will defer the questions of German law to someone who knows about it (see the link below posted by Historiograf) but I agree, if the work is replaced frequently it is not "permanent". If no clear consensus on the meaning of the phrase in this case can be reached the image should probably be deleted. -Nard 23:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As photographer I can assure that the map is a permanent installation. Read the German decision Grassofa or ask Lupo --Historiograf 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true (and I emphatically doubt that it is), German FOP is not free in the sense required by Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Freedom_of_panorama_and_.22permanent.22 —the preceding unsigned comment is by Historiograf (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Keep FOP applies, "permanent" does not mean "eternal".--Wiggum 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a permanent installation, in German towns these maps surrounded by advertising are built up once, AFAIK there is no exchange of content. keep, whenever I don’t like the photo. --Polarlys 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what about German FOP not allowing commercial uses? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany it is usally to install such maps permanently in such a way. With permanently I mean the lifetime of the map. So keep it. If you delete this image, it makes it more difficult for me to make pictures under FOP for commons. Also if I find this image not so very usefull. Kolossos 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Histo/Wiggum etc: If you are right, how can this image be considered under "panorama"? I would accept a photo of the box if it includes its surroundings. But this is little more than a 2D object and alternate depiction of it aren't possible. Compare with a photo of a building with a McDonald's logo -- you cannot cut out the McDonald's logo and upload it here separately under FOP. IMO it is the same thing here. I agree with Siebrand in thinking that you can't reuse this map for a commercial purpose, so because the photo mainly shows the map I think it should be deleted. / Fred J 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have zero knowledge of German law why do you confuse something? It is not appropriate to cut the logo out because here is logo-phobia-land (confusing trademark rights and copyright) but I think it could be seen as legal at a German court. If the non-commercial use of a part of the picture is a problem ALL FOP pictures from Germany have to be deleted. Freedom of panorama is no official German legal term. Read the German copyright act: the freedom refers to all works (permanently installed poems, murals, permanently installed 2-D-maps and so on) --Historiograf 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because here many do not want to understand, what's panoramafreiheit i have save the File at .DE --Marcela 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did not understand whats "freedom of panaroma" is. They probably did also not understand what "work" is. So, to sum it up:

  1. This map is copyrighted.
  2. The copyright owner(s) is(are) not named
  3. The copyright owner(s) did not agree use the image under GFDL or similar licences
  4. All the works are permanently installed in public
  5. Therefor the image may be published in germany and other countries in which freedom of panorama applies to such images. In other countries the image may be used under fair-use or similar clauses.
  6. The image may not be altered

The conclusion of all this is, that the image is a "No Derivative Work" und must be deleted, according to the rules on commons.

Exactly like this Image:EuropeanParliament.jpg, this Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg, Image:Musiktheater im Revier.jpg, like his Image:Euston Tower 2004.jpg, like this Image:Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas .jpg and a few 100000 more.

This leaves us with two choices. To delete all images to which only freedom of panorame applies, which means it is more important not to keep images the no "No Derivative Work" restrictions than to illustrate wikipedia, or to accept "No Derivative Work" at all. And nothing inbetween.

Hm, who uploaded the images in Category:Nebra disk? Please compare with [1]. This is without doubt a so called "copyright infringement". This also applies to all derivative work of the object in question with at least non-commercial restrictions. However, probably the artist may contribute to the OTRS.....

To close the comment: For none of images wikipedia will be sued.

-- Stahlkocher 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Freedom of panorama in Germany applies here. -- Cecil 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:2006mai_saffig_023.jpg&oldid=425050965"