Commons:Deletion requests/Buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson

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.

Buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson

[edit]

This is a multiple request for the following images:

Nominations added by User:Fingalo August 2010:

All the above images are photographs of buildings designed by the Icelandic architect w:Guðjón Samúelsson who died in 1950. Article 43 of the English translation of the Icelandic legislation[1] states that the copyright is for 70 years following the year of death of the copyright holder.

Please see COM:FOP#Iceland and Commons:Deletion requests/Images of buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson for previous consensus and deletions. --JD554 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have the impression that this FOP is exaggerated at an extent which was not even in mind of the legislative authority. A building like Hallgrimskirkja shows up inevitably on almost every second picture of Reykjavik and I cannot imagine that the purpose of FOP is to delete all these pictures. I suggest to leave the pictures online if the questionable subject is not the main subject of the picture, like in File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg. The same applies e.g. for all pictures of Dubai and consequently every picture showing a building of Dubai should therefore be deleted. I can agree with the FOP if pictures are uploaded with the purpose to show architectonial details, but general views of cities? Definitely not! Beside all that, the legal aspect about the location of the server with the pictures on remains: Is - in the above case - Icelandic law applicable, if the servers are located in any third party country? My request: Apply the FOP, but be reasonable! -- Simisa (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have agreed with you if the image of the church in File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg was just coincidental. However, it is clearly the biggest building in the centre of the photograph and the description of the image is "Hallgrímskirkja in Reykjavik", I wouldn't describe it as a "general view of the city". --JD554 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the other arguments? BTW: The picture can be renamed to something like "Street views of Reykjyvik"... The church is covering approx. 10 % of the whole picture! -- Simisa (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only other argument I can see is about the location of the servers and would that be applicable to Icelandic law. The answer to that is of course ... yes. --JD554 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, hope I'm getting this right: "Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland." meaning that image is free for use until 70 years have passed since the architect's death? And if that's right, there's a calculation error: Guðjón Samúelsson died in 1950, so only 60 years have passed since his death, so in the year 2020 these deletions would make sense, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyndeer (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The images would be OK from 1 January 2021, as the 70 years doesn't start until the end of the year the copyright holder died. --JD554 (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The [FOP] in Iceland is only applicable if the object in question is the main subject of the picture. Therefore the article is not applicable for File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg! -- Simisa (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is the main subject of the picture as explained above. We'll let an admin decide. --JD554 (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all of them. The law is clear. I don't agree with the argument that the de minimis exception applies to File:2006-05-22-130313 Iceland Reykjavík.jpg -- the church is the only interesting thing in the photo and the only thing described by the uploader. It's the dead center of the image. I don't like it much either, but that's the law. If you don't like it, complain to the Althing, or ask the architect for a license. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The famous article 16 does NOT say that people must NOT take photographs of buildings, on the contrary. It only says that if a photograph is "exploited for marketing purposes, the author (architect) shall be entitled to remuneration"!!! So one should not be more Catholic than the Pope, as it were. As far as I understand art. 16, it is absolutely allowed to publish photographs, but if anyone on our planet starts to make money out of these Wikimedia photographs, then the author and his heirs are entitled to claim their share. Cf.: Article 16: Photographs may be taken and presented of buildings, as well as works of art, which have been situated permanently out-of-doors in a public location. Should a building, which enjoys protection under the rules concerning works of architecture, or a work of art as previously referred to, comprise the principal motif in a photograph which is exploited for marketing purposes, the author shall be entitled to remuneration, unless the pictures are intended for use by a newspaper or in television broadcasting.212.183.103.187 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment User:212.183.103.187 has the facts exactly right, but the wrong conclusion. Commons images must be free for commercial use -- to be "exploited for marketing purposes" without payment to the architect. This is an essential part of Commons -- we are a repository for the world, commercial and non-commercial, not just for our related projects. (As an example, all of my images which have been used outside Commons have been for commercial use.)       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." So if it needs a licence in order to make commercial use of the image, we can't host it here. --JD554 (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Well, the photographs in question (Icelandic architecture) can be used "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose", but if a user makes money by selling the photographs he/she should be aware of the fact that in Iceland the heirs may claim some percentage or royalties. May I ask a stupid question: does Icelandic copyright law apply to states outside Iceland? I asked a tourist guide book publisher if he knows about the art. 16 restrictions and he said he would not care because in Europe, according to European law, it is legal to publish photographs showing Icelandic architecture (unless the Icelandic architecture is considered harmful because of their ugliness). Joking apart: Iceland is part of the European Economic Space area and probably Iceland had to accept European copyright regulations in the last few years. Could this be? Maybe the art. 16 is obsolete and it is not even necessary to declare it null and void officially.Martinp1 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Again, work on Commons must be free for use by anyone, any time, for any purpose, without payment. This must be true under the laws of the United States (where our servers are located) and in the country of origin, in this case, Iceland. As you say, Icelandic law allows the architect (or his or her heirs) to collect royalties for commercial use. That is not consistent with Commons's requirements. Period. End of story.
As for your guide book publisher, he's wrong. The EU (and all other signers of the Berne Convention) honor the laws of all other signers. The EU law is exactly like the Icelandic law -- that all architecture and sculpture is subject to copyright and may not be photographed for commercial use. The EU allows its members to relax that rule and some countries do so for buildings in their own countries. So, our Icelandic architect could bring an action against your guide book publisher in the EU and would win.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Before deleting the images, please wait a few weeks, I have contacted the Icelandic Education Ministry, which handles the Copyright Law, and asked for advice, maybe the heirs of Gudjon Samúelsson will give their consent. Martinp1 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment It IS legal to publish Icelandic architecture photographs in e.g. Germany because in Germany there is freedom of panorama! So, as it seems, a German guide book publisher MAY use photographs of Gudjon Samuelsson buildings without paying any remuneration to hypothetic Icelandic heirs!! This principle is called lex loci protectionis or Schutzlandprinzip, cf. [[2]] and comments on the Hundertwasser case. Thus, as far as I understand, Commons Wikimedia may guarantee the unrestricted usage of Icelandic architecture buildings, even for commercial purposes, for all countries which have freedom of panorama because in these countries (e.g. US, Netherlands and Germany) protection can be claimed only within the national law. Martinp1 (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only problem with that is that Commons' own rules (not legislation) only allows images that are free to use in the United States and the country of origin (see COM:L). That is not the case here, as the images are not free to use in Iceland. --JD554 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The law also says that a picture is illegal, if the majority of the picture shows the questionable object. The majority means more than 50 % of the picture area. Full stop! If one of the heirs of Guðjón Samúelsson has a different opinion, it is up to them to claim the deletion of a certain picture. Otherwise e.g. all aerial pictures of Reykjavik have to be deleted, because Hallgrímskirkja can be seen on all of them! Simisa (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you're talking about is the de minimis principal. It does not need the copyrighted part of the image to be more than 50% of the total size of the image, just for the copyrighted part to be trivial - which cannot be used to describe any of the images above. --JD554 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all since the law is clear. Sadly. Hekerui (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I don't agree that the four images added by Fingalo should be deleted under COM:FOP as they are pictures of the inside of the building and they don't show very much of the building at all. I'm not sure COM:FOP even covers the insides? --JD554 (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: I start to understand the principle of FOP. For my full understanding I would appreciate, if someone could explain me, why a picture like e.g. File:Reykjavík33.jpg should not be deleted. I guess that the architects of most of the houses on the picture are not known, at least to a wider public. That means that in general it is not given that they died more than 70 years ago. If this is not granted, according to FOP, the result of their work must not be disclosed for free use. Due to the resolution of the picture - you can also pick any other high resolution picture of Icelandic buildings - the architectonial details of each and every building can clearly be seen. It is hence possible, to use only a part of the picture commercially. And this is exactly what FOP wants to avoid. Should therefore not all high resolution pictures of Iceland showing any building be deleted? Of course with the exception of those where a minimum 70 years old written approval of death of the architect is available... Simisa (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image content matters, not the resolution. "If the work is the main subject of the photo ..." is the point - if you want to show the city and airport and not concentrate on an individual building it's fine, but if you crop out what you want to concentrate on, and that building's architect isn't dead for 70 years, and make it available under a commercial license, then it's problematic. That would be my explanation anyway. Hekerui (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, sadly, but clearly. Prepare for re-upload on January 1, 2021. --Túrelio (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. This has been open now for four months. It's time to close it. Although there are some wonderful buildings here, the Icelandic law leaves recent buildings there outside of our scope. Too bad.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Buildings_designed_by_Guðjón_Samúelsson&oldid=523255581"