Commons:Deletion requests/File:Останкинская телебашня (Ostankino-Tower).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.

File:Останкинская_телебашня_(Ostankino-Tower).JPG

[edit]

merged requests:

Building was designed by architect Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a building carrying many antennas and transmitters, with an observation deck and a restaurant on top. --Fernrohr (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly call it a news photo (article 1274), taken 6 years after the fire, and from too far away to see that part of the facade which was impacted by the fire. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Too far away"? Then it can't infringe IP rights. --Iotatau (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You find it here- --Fernrohr (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have pointed me to Art. 1276 before, I have pointed you to Art. 1274 before. To complete the circle I restate your words that the tower is an engineering achievement and that the image has been taken "too far away" to recognize important details. You yourself have refuted the arguments for deleting this image, thank you. --Iotatau (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reasoned my request with the IP of the architect (Nikitin). The photo is too far away to see the details (that part of the facade which was impacted by the fire) that might qualify as a news image, apart from the timing 6 years after the event (art. 1274). It is not too far away to make the tower, as designed by the architect, not "the basic object of the reproduction" (art. 1276). I don't think we should find here bizarre excuses for copyvios. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You turn the demands upside down: for news photos the quality standards are much lower than for works of art. This image is good for documenting the tower history but it does not "reproduce" Nikitin's architecture. Too many details are lacking for a faithful reproduction. --Iotatau (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo displays the complete bulding of an architect who died in 1973, which is exactly when FOP would be necessary in order for the uploader to be able to grant a CC-license for commercial use. The building is famous, therefore somehow unique. --Fernrohr (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Functional building. Beside that, almost everybody above agreed with that. Yann (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened the debate.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteThe arguments made above are, roughly:

  • It's not a building -- although primarily built as an antenna tower, it has restaurants, shops, and public spaces, which make it a building. Even User:Yann, when restoring the file, calls it a building. But it doesn't matter. All architecture has a copyright and any large structure is architecture, see see most English language dictionaries including the OED. Would you say that the Eiffel Tower was not architecture?
  • It's not a work of art. -- There is no requirement that a copyrighted work be beautiful, or be a work of art. The only requirement is originality -- it must not be a copy of something PD.
  • It's not original. -- Please. The shape, the various detailing, including the multi-legged base (see File:Socle ostankino tower.JPG) and the several bulges for restaurants, shops, and services make it unique and original.
  • "Cars, locomotives, rockets" and other engineering works don't have copyrights, so this shouldn't. -- That argument would have been excellent a hundred years ago. Architecture is a relatively recent addition to the list of things covered by copyright, but it is explicitly covered now in most countries, including the USA and Russia. Cars, locomotives, and rockets aren't.
  • It is a functional structure, therefore not covered by copyright. -- Most architecture has one specific function. Would you argue that the Vehicle Assembly Building is not architecture? Or the John Hancock Tower. The former's only function is putting together Space Shuttles. The latter's function is an office building. There is nothing in the law that says that a structure that functions as an office building is covered by copyright, but a structure that functions as an antenna tower is not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. As NVO wrote on Fernrohr's talk page: A policy is in place but there's no commitment. None. [...] practically anything built in the Union fails COM:FOP in this or that way. It's a five-digit mass of photos. Current "consensus" is to disregard COM:FOP in this case: no one really cares about legalese crap fabricated in Russia or North Korea. [...] Can this simple statement lead to a summary deletion of all photography in the Union-related categories? (accentuation by me) - yes, it can, if you go ahead deleting stuff like this, resulting in Wikimedia Commons becoming virtually useless for illustrating articles about Russia and/or or the Soviet Union (which occupied 1/6 of the Earth's land area). Change this policy right now because of common sense and the nullo actore, nullus iudex principle, and stop deletions at least until this point is clarified! And BTW, we do not need administrators implementing "commons policies" acting like robots not considering any issues around, like the mentioned above... --SibFreak (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody will sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep and do something!
Firstly, according to [1], it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut "no" to non-commercial use like Commons.
Secondly, this sort of discussion is spectacularly fruitless. Why has nobody bothered to find a practical rather than a theoretical answer to the question of whether to delete or keep this photo? There has to be a middle ground between "keeping it and hoping nothing bad is going to happen" and "deleting it in anticipatory obedience".
You'll easily find two official websites affiliated with the tower: it is a member of the World Federation of Great Towers, and it even has its own website [2]. Both sites feature a good few photos of the tower. And the tower's website lists contacts for their Advertising and Press department, as well as their Legal department. Now there's a thought...
So why exactly are we debating here whether it's okay to use this photo on Commons when it's possible to actually ask somebody with at least some authority with regard to the tower? To spell it out: Wouldn't it be possible to ask the tower people whether a) the photo is ok to be used, or whether they can b) provide a substitute? It might be best to get somebody with a knowledge of Russian to do this, though. In any case, I don't want to believe that the great people of Wikimediaworld can't get this done practically and instead prefer to engage in discussions that only have theoretical value and little bearing on the real world. --afromme 12:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not "non-commercial use" -- we require images to be free for commercial use. In fact all of my images that have been taken from Commons for use elsewhere have been for commercial use.
It is not "the tower people" that need to give permission, it is the architect or his heirs. Without a license from the architect, there is no possible substitute -- the problem is not this image, it is that any image of the tower infringes the architect's copyright.
We in fact, as a matter of firm, established policy, "delet[e] in anticipatory obedience". We are "a database of 7,465,085 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute". This, the subhead from our main page, says "freely usable", not "freely usable as long as no one objects".
We therefore do not do what we would like to do -- all of us would like to keep FOP problem images like this one, we do what Russian law and our firm policy requires us to do, which is to delete in this case.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Jameslwoodward as this is a building by the renowned Russian architect Nikolai Nikitin which is naturally copyrighted. Please notice that, for example, the arrangement and design of the arcs and the bull's eye-windows which are arranged in an interesting pattern at the bottom (to be seen at File:Socle ostankino tower.JPG) are clearly a copyrighted work of architecture which is not a strict consequence of its function. Likewise, the arrangement of the tower with its sequence of sections and lighting as very well demonstrated by File:Ostankino tower.jpg and File:Ostankino 2.jpg indicate that we have a magnificent piece of architecture where originality is given. As it is well known, we require per COM:L and per this resolution of the WMF that all media at Commons must be free for commercial use. Unfortunately, the very strict legislation in Russia does not extend FOP to commercial use with the result that we cannot keep these images. Other than Wikimedia Commons, individual projects are free to take advantage of the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) (as, for example, en-wp) or to apply local law (as, for example, de-wp) and to continue to use these images by moving them to the individual projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Останкинская_телебашня_(Ostankino-Tower).JPG&oldid=135839796"