Commons:Deletion requests/Artwork from Brussels
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Artwork from Brussels
[edit]File:Blake et Mortimer fresque Bruxelles.jpg ()
File:Brussels-Metro-Hankar.jpg ()
File:Bruxelle fresque titeuf.jpg ()
File:Bruxelles impasse du Val des Roses 02.jpg () (note: the background is a painting, not a tree)
File:Bruxelles rue du Bon Secours 804.jpg ()
File:Caroline Baldwin Bxl.JPG ()
File:Ixelles Musée des Sciences naturelles 01.jpg ()
File:Ixelles Musée des Sciences naturelles 02.jpg ()
File:Jan Spier.jpg ()
File:Matonge.jpg ()
File:MetroBrussel Vandervelde.jpg ()
File:Nick Fresque Bruxelles.jpg ()
File:Victor Sackville Bxl.JPG ()
File:Le Passage inconnu - François Schuiten.jpg ()
File:MetroBrussel Bizet.jpg ()
File:MetroBrussel Boudewijn.jpg ()
File:MetroBrussel Simonis lijn2.jpg ()
File:MetroBrussel Stuyvenbergh.jpg ()
File:Hommage aan Fernando Passoa - Julio Pomar.jpg ()
File:La Ville-Roger Dudant.jpg ()
File:Metro Brussel COOVI.jpg ()
File:Metro Brussel Diamant.jpg ()
File:Metro Brussels Bruxelles Heizel Heysel line 1A.jpg ()
File:MetroBrussel Hallepoort lijn2.jpg ()
File:MetroBrussel Merode perron.jpg ()
File:Station métro Bruxelles.JPG ()
These images feature paintings, sculptures or other kinds of art that are located in Brussels. There is no sufficient COM:FOP in Belgium, thus these images need to be deleted as derivative work of copyrighted artwork. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no reason to delete Image:MetroBrussel Merode perron.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Could maybe be kept as DM, this one is difficult. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Belgian law: Art. 9. Unless otherwise agreed, assignment of a work of fine art shall imply assignment to the acquirer of the right to exhibit the work as such under conditions that are not damaging to the honor or reputation of its author, but not the assignment of any other of the author's rights.
- You misinterprete the Belgian law. No damaging done at all. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with FOP? Please see COM:FOP, it clearly says, that there is no sufficient FOP in Belgium. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please realise that in Belgium only Belgian law is valid, not German law. Your juridical "Freedom Of Panorama" in Belgium is to be found in Belgian law. Please read the law, found via the article under 4.4.2 Belgium. See article 9. The images are not in a museum, but displayed open to all public. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not applying German law. The law you cited says, that the city is allowed to show the works to the public. That does not mean, that we are allowed to take pictures of them. It clearly says but not the assignment of any other of the author's rights. These other rights include the right to decide who is allowed to take pictures of it. If you want to tell me, that FOP in Belgium exists and is OK for Commons images, please discuss this on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. A deletion request is not the right place to discuss a Commons policy. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't know the existance of that page. I will study first and react over there after. Have to locate my studybooks on copyrights, hope to find more than softewareknowledge.--Stunteltje (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- ChrisiPK, you are talking rubbish and you know it. Of course it is not forbidden to make pictures of subway art in Belgium. It is just that Commons does not want to host them, because they are not free for commercial use. The Belgian law allows free use of such images for educational projects (
like wikipedia isprobably not according to this Belgian law). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)- Pieter, I am not talking rubbish, please read my statement again. I said that just the fact that the city is allowed to put the works in a public place, does not allow us to take pictures of them as the right to take pictures of a work is not concerned, when giving a work to someone. This was related to the law cited by Stunteltje. The reason, we are allowed to take pictures of them, is the FOP in Belgium. These pictures could probably be used for Wikipedia et. al., but the policy of the WMF only allows commercially usable images. Which is why we should delete them here. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- You wrote: "These other rights include the right to decide who is allowed to take pictures of it." That is not att all true, anybody is allowed to make pictures in Belgium of any building or published work of art for personal use. Also, any teacher may do that for free use in class. The copyrightholder cannot stop a scholar from using the images for scholarly publications. For us here the important exception is when the purpose of the reproduction is not the work of art itself. In this case, the purpose of the photos is to show what subway stations look like, see the file names and the discriptions. The Metro images should be fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Let us not fight about what I said and how I said it and how anyone could misunderstand it. I think my point is clear. If you want to keep the images, COM:DM must apply. I nominated only the ones where I thought that it does not apply. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The passage corresponding to "de minimis" is in Belgian law formulated as (in Dutch): "wanneer het doel van de reproduktie of van de mededeling aan het publiek niet het werk zelf is," or (in French): "lorsque le but de la reproduction ou de la communication au public n'est pas l'oeuvre elle-même." In this case, the file names of the metro images indicate that the purpose of these images is to show the subway. The photographer does not concentrate on the artwork. That is why distribution of such images does not require permission of the copyright holder. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that the filename alone can be proof for DM. If I take a picture of a copyrighted work and call it "MuseumInCity" or whatever, the work itself still remains the main focus of the image. Just naming the image after the location does not make it free. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The passage corresponding to "de minimis" is in Belgian law formulated as (in Dutch): "wanneer het doel van de reproduktie of van de mededeling aan het publiek niet het werk zelf is," or (in French): "lorsque le but de la reproduction ou de la communication au public n'est pas l'oeuvre elle-même." In this case, the file names of the metro images indicate that the purpose of these images is to show the subway. The photographer does not concentrate on the artwork. That is why distribution of such images does not require permission of the copyright holder. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Let us not fight about what I said and how I said it and how anyone could misunderstand it. I think my point is clear. If you want to keep the images, COM:DM must apply. I nominated only the ones where I thought that it does not apply. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- You wrote: "These other rights include the right to decide who is allowed to take pictures of it." That is not att all true, anybody is allowed to make pictures in Belgium of any building or published work of art for personal use. Also, any teacher may do that for free use in class. The copyrightholder cannot stop a scholar from using the images for scholarly publications. For us here the important exception is when the purpose of the reproduction is not the work of art itself. In this case, the purpose of the photos is to show what subway stations look like, see the file names and the discriptions. The Metro images should be fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Pieter, I am not talking rubbish, please read my statement again. I said that just the fact that the city is allowed to put the works in a public place, does not allow us to take pictures of them as the right to take pictures of a work is not concerned, when giving a work to someone. This was related to the law cited by Stunteltje. The reason, we are allowed to take pictures of them, is the FOP in Belgium. These pictures could probably be used for Wikipedia et. al., but the policy of the WMF only allows commercially usable images. Which is why we should delete them here. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not applying German law. The law you cited says, that the city is allowed to show the works to the public. That does not mean, that we are allowed to take pictures of them. It clearly says but not the assignment of any other of the author's rights. These other rights include the right to decide who is allowed to take pictures of it. If you want to tell me, that FOP in Belgium exists and is OK for Commons images, please discuss this on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. A deletion request is not the right place to discuss a Commons policy. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please realise that in Belgium only Belgian law is valid, not German law. Your juridical "Freedom Of Panorama" in Belgium is to be found in Belgian law. Please read the law, found via the article under 4.4.2 Belgium. See article 9. The images are not in a museum, but displayed open to all public. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with FOP? Please see COM:FOP, it clearly says, that there is no sufficient FOP in Belgium. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete all except 
Neutral on Image:MetroBrussel Hallepoort lijn2.jpg & Image:MetroBrussel Merode perron.jpg. I'd like to discuss those separately. It seems to me that the art depicted in those might be PD-ineligible. --J.smith (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. All exept the two, I will open a new request for them. I think we where able to calrify the copyright-issues above, so I am aware there is no way then delete. abf /talk to me/ 13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Waar zijn jullie malloten in godsnaam mee bezig? Net alsof iemand zal protesteren tegen afbeeldingen van Brusselse metrostations. Jullie idioten zijn heel Wikipedia in de vernieling aan het helpen met jullie juridisch gezever.