Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape
Category:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape
[edit]- File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (1).jpg
- File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (2).jpg
- File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (3).jpg
- File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (4).jpg
- File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (5).jpg
- File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (6).jpg
and probably:
This church is located in France, where there’s no Freedom of panorama ; it dates from 1968 (fr:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape; « Rénovation complète de l’église Saint-Pierre-Chanel », leprogres.fr : “Construite en 1968, l’église Saint-Pierre Chanel est…” (“Constructed in 1968, the Church of St. Pierre Chanel is…”), so the author of the building cannot be dead for 70 years. --37.164.164.201 14:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- This church was built by "Œuvre des Chantiers du Cardinal", which is a non-profit organization. Maybe we should check with them: They could possibly give away their rights to increase their visibility (not sure, this is only an idea). Rc1959 (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- File:Intérieur du Totem (MJC) en février 2020.jpg has no link with this church.
- You cannot recognize any originality through this kind of picture => File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (6).jpg, File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (5).jpg, File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (4).jpg, File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (3).jpg.
- My opinion is these 5 last pictures shoud be kept.
- ---
- The question is opened for File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (1).jpg & File:Église Saint-Pierre-Chanel de Rillieux-la-Pape (2).jpg. These 2 pictures should perhaps be deleted. Who is the architect? Sometimes when the building is not so original, there is no official architect. Perhaps the case here. I'm going to look for the name of this architect (an architect "des Chantiers du Cardinal"?). ----Benoît (d) 22:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Has this “Hey, if we only show half of the facade, it’s not original enough to have a protection” reasonning be done elsewhere? because I don’t see how it could legally be valid at all, as long as you’re not zooming on a technical detail.
- It’s also quite obvious from a look to the building that it has an architect. That’s not a crude warehouse.
- I’ll open (at the end of this one) a different discussion for Intérieur du Totem (MJC) en février 2020.jpg as, yes, it’s a different story. Even if it’s protected in the same ways I think, so it should also be deleted in my opinion.
- @Rc1959: I’m always for getting permissions to publish an image, but the French droit d’auteur is really horrible here, as the only people who keeps the rights is the architect of the building. But contacting the Œuvre des Chantiers du Cardinal may help, if you have the time to do it.
- (And a disclaimer for curious readers, Benoît is the author of the images.)
- 37.170.87.4 14:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC) [the deletion requester]
- Naive suggestion ? Instead of deleting the image, would not it be possible to display a wide red banner onto it, telling something like "WE ARE NOT SURE OF THE COPYRIGHT OF THE IMAGE. IF YOU OWN IT, PLEASE CONTACT US". This would avoid a lot of work (maybe deletion not needed), would be legal (a blurred and hidden image is not usable), show our good faith, and would inform the copyright owners the best possible way. Basically, it would transform "deletion requests" into "blurring/hiding/watermarking requests". What do you think, please ? Rc1959 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I’m not a big user of Commons, but IIRC, that’s not the politic of this website. There’s a possibility to transfer images on the French Wikipedia with such an horrible wide red banner (we have voted years ago something like that, I don’t remember the details, probably a limited number of images and only if used in the article), if someone wants to take the time to do that (but that’s not my cup of tea). 37.170.182.100 19:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC) [the deletion requester]
- Naive suggestion ? Instead of deleting the image, would not it be possible to display a wide red banner onto it, telling something like "WE ARE NOT SURE OF THE COPYRIGHT OF THE IMAGE. IF YOU OWN IT, PLEASE CONTACT US". This would avoid a lot of work (maybe deletion not needed), would be legal (a blurred and hidden image is not usable), show our good faith, and would inform the copyright owners the best possible way. Basically, it would transform "deletion requests" into "blurring/hiding/watermarking requests". What do you think, please ? Rc1959 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion, deleted most, including the images which show a metalwork fence, which might be copyrighted as well (and there is no FOP in France). The interior could be kept, as well as the image nr. 5 which shows an outside wall of the church without any personal details of the designer. --Ellywa (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)