Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ancient Mechanical Artillery. Pic 03.jpg
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.
1) No permission by creators of the displayed work. The photographed work is protected (at least as a "Darstellung wissenschaftlicher oder technischer Art" (§ 2 (1), S. 7 UrhG)). The required degree of creativity and originality is particularly low for works of that category (for instance it is not comparable to that of a work of applied arts). Note that the creators also did not simply create a more-or-less identical copy of an existing work or even created it based on comprehensive archeological findings but that there are mostly descriptions of the (technically) most important parts of that sort of catapults, partly dating back to 300 BC(!). 2) According to the museum, taking photographs is generally prohibited in there. The image should therefore not be stored here. Best wishes, ~ —Pill (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know but for me this is an extreme interpretation of german law. The creators made this machine realisticaly working so I don't see a difference in between a work of applied arts. In my oppinion the german law applies more to sientific models like scale solar system model or orreries.--Avron (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Avron, note that it is also assumed to apply to "models of machines, vehicles, technical facilities, buildings, cities, gardens etc." (Loewenheim in Schricker/Loewenheim 4th ed., § 2, 198; own translation). It cannot be a work of applied arts due to the lack of any "application" -- it doesn't have a particular (technical) "purpose" (here, specifically, it isn't designed, say, for use in the military). Accordingly, it is not eligible for "design protection" (Geschmacksmusterschutz), hence it cannot possibly be assumed that the degree of originality required for protection is lower here (for this reasoning, see BGH I ZR 119/93; GRUR 1995, 581). Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- For me this is not a model. It is a working reproduction. I've seen application of such reproduction in live reenactments (Category:Roman_legion_reenactments). The reproduced weapons do the same thing what they did in the ancient roman times. This DR may be a precedent, because with the same argumentaion you may delete reproductions of uniforms like File:Centurion 2 Boulogne Luc Viatour.jpg, other equipment like File:Roman_handmill_from_first_century.jpg or weapons like File:Balliste_1.jpg--Avron (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete I agree that this is difficult, which why I am commenting rather than simply closing the discussion. It is not a reproduction, but a simplified educational model, albeit full size or nearly so. I base this on the form of the woodwork -- clean, planed smooth, and varnished -- on the steel plate joints which would not exist in ancient times, and other details. Therefore, the creator made a lot of choices of what to include, what to simplify, and what to leave out. Those choices are creative, and, therefore have a copyright.- I should add that the fact that the museum prohibits photographs is not relevant to our discussion -- our clear policy is to ignore it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- With this we can't keep any "reproductions" of old things when they aren't 100% copies. As I said this is an extreme interpretation of german law. In technical choises doesn't make this catatapult a artistic object.--Avron (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is by no means extreme. Your error of judgement is just that you assume it to be a pure reproduction or even a "copy." Unfortunately there was nothing to copy. Specifically, the creator did not copy an existing catapult as realistically as possible. Why is this distinction so important? As Jim pointed out rightly, what is protected here is the combination of different objects, the "ensemble of techniques." There was no reason to combine those in the exact manner the creator did here. He did choose this arrangement (instead of myriads of different arrangements imaginable given the ancient descriptions) for a purpose: And that purpose was not to create a one-to-one copy but to create a model in a way that makes it particularly easy for the viewer to distinguish between parts of the catapult by reducing the model to what is important, and by emphasizing certain parts of it through color and form. —Pill (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- What you both tell about ensemble of techniques applies also to every non-artistic object. Every automobile, plane and screwdriver is the result of ensemble of techniques. This catapult is not different same. It isn't an abstract scientific model. That is the error of judgement you both make. This catapult is not reduced to what is important, no parts are emphasized by color and form. --Avron (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict:) You're mixing up categories of works. An automobile/plane/screwdriver can be protected under § 2 (1) S. 4 as a work of applied arts, it can, however, not normally be protected as a "Darstellung wissenschaftlicher oder technischer Art." Why? Because its purpose is not the "Vermittlung von Informationen im Sinne einer Belehrung oder Unterrichtung" <Loewenheim in Schricker/Loewenheim 4th ed., § 2, 197> (I'm afraid I couldn't come up with a good translation, perhaps someone can help). However, a model of an automobile/plane/screwdriver can indeed be protected under § 2 (1) S. 7. The model does not have to be "abstract scientific," in particular the object it is intended to display does not have to be scientific at all (ibid.; that's also the reason why, for instance, model trains are assumed to be potentially protected, too <Schulze in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts 2nd ed., § 9, 205, also for further reference>).
Please remember that section 4 and 7 simply protect different things. —Pill (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)- It is not that simple, as I said it is an extreme interpretation. All things can be used as knowledge transfer ("Vermittlung von Informationen im Sinne einer Belehrung oder Unterrichtung"). But this catapult is just a catapult. A ancient roman craftsman would made a very similiar catapult. Of course there are no exact plans to reproduce a catapult but the principles are well known. In addition we have thousands of photos of reproductions of ancient tools, weapons etc. In most cases there are no 100% reproductions. Do you want to delete them all? Why is this image so special?--Avron (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, let's add some comments to that. Here's what I think is an extreme interpretation: Claiming that a work is an almost 100% reproduction without even knowing the original. Let us assume I am a really bad archeologist. Now I build a catapult using a 2000-odd year old explanatory note but, unfortunately, I got it all wrong and my work doesn't have much to do with what is described in the note, and it also turns out that the author of the note simplified things as well (perhaps spent too much time in his favorite taberna, who knows?). Then, someone takes a picture of my work illegally and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons. Judging from your comments, you will argue, then, that because I wanted it to be a repduction of an ancient Roman work, it cannot be protected. I think you see what I'm getting at: If one doesn't know the original, it's hard to assume the work to be an almost 100% reproduction (just look at what these guys made of it).
I already pointed out why I think there is a fair chance that this is a "Darstellung wissenschaftlicher oder technischer Art" (for which quite clear criteria have been developed in court rulings, so I'm not really getting what you mean by "All things can be used as knowledge transfer"): The creator had, I assume (because this is how such works are typically created), to make decisions between relevant and less relevant information given in his sources, he had to separate potentially wrong from probably correct information, he had to make decisions regarding color and material of the reproduction etc.
I also do not find it convincing to argue that "a Roman craftsman would have made a very similar catapult." You sure? I think they were not so interested in creating models for museums. And of course this doesn't mean we have do delete every "reproduction" of Roman works ... don't really know what makes you think so. —Pill (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)- Just because someone had to make technical decisions doesn't make his work copyrighted. As I said before, the german law covers work which ist't art but abstract or simplified models. Technical reproductions (100% or similar) aren't coverd by this law. You have't answered my question: In addition we have thousands of photos of reproductions of ancient tools, weapons etc. In most cases there are no 100% reproductions. Do you want to delete them all? Why is this image so special?--Avron (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- These were not solely technical decisions (as pointed out ...). For some reason you also seem to silently ignore every comment of mine emphasizing that it is not a 100% reproduction (can you show me the reproduced work? Oh right, there is none.). As to your question, I did answer it, saying that "this doesn't mean we have to delete every reproduction." Please understand that I cannot find the time to go through the entire category, performing individual checks on each and every displayed work's copyright status. (And I have no idea whatsoever in how far this is relevant to this request.) —Pill (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see, we won't solve this. My argumentation is the same. Technical decisions aren't copyrighted by german the german law. "Darstellung wissenschaftlicher oder technischer Art" is quite different. Let's stop and let the admins decide. --Avron (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- These were not solely technical decisions (as pointed out ...). For some reason you also seem to silently ignore every comment of mine emphasizing that it is not a 100% reproduction (can you show me the reproduced work? Oh right, there is none.). As to your question, I did answer it, saying that "this doesn't mean we have to delete every reproduction." Please understand that I cannot find the time to go through the entire category, performing individual checks on each and every displayed work's copyright status. (And I have no idea whatsoever in how far this is relevant to this request.) —Pill (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just because someone had to make technical decisions doesn't make his work copyrighted. As I said before, the german law covers work which ist't art but abstract or simplified models. Technical reproductions (100% or similar) aren't coverd by this law. You have't answered my question: In addition we have thousands of photos of reproductions of ancient tools, weapons etc. In most cases there are no 100% reproductions. Do you want to delete them all? Why is this image so special?--Avron (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, let's add some comments to that. Here's what I think is an extreme interpretation: Claiming that a work is an almost 100% reproduction without even knowing the original. Let us assume I am a really bad archeologist. Now I build a catapult using a 2000-odd year old explanatory note but, unfortunately, I got it all wrong and my work doesn't have much to do with what is described in the note, and it also turns out that the author of the note simplified things as well (perhaps spent too much time in his favorite taberna, who knows?). Then, someone takes a picture of my work illegally and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons. Judging from your comments, you will argue, then, that because I wanted it to be a repduction of an ancient Roman work, it cannot be protected. I think you see what I'm getting at: If one doesn't know the original, it's hard to assume the work to be an almost 100% reproduction (just look at what these guys made of it).
- It is not that simple, as I said it is an extreme interpretation. All things can be used as knowledge transfer ("Vermittlung von Informationen im Sinne einer Belehrung oder Unterrichtung"). But this catapult is just a catapult. A ancient roman craftsman would made a very similiar catapult. Of course there are no exact plans to reproduce a catapult but the principles are well known. In addition we have thousands of photos of reproductions of ancient tools, weapons etc. In most cases there are no 100% reproductions. Do you want to delete them all? Why is this image so special?--Avron (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict:) You're mixing up categories of works. An automobile/plane/screwdriver can be protected under § 2 (1) S. 4 as a work of applied arts, it can, however, not normally be protected as a "Darstellung wissenschaftlicher oder technischer Art." Why? Because its purpose is not the "Vermittlung von Informationen im Sinne einer Belehrung oder Unterrichtung" <Loewenheim in Schricker/Loewenheim 4th ed., § 2, 197> (I'm afraid I couldn't come up with a good translation, perhaps someone can help). However, a model of an automobile/plane/screwdriver can indeed be protected under § 2 (1) S. 7. The model does not have to be "abstract scientific," in particular the object it is intended to display does not have to be scientific at all (ibid.; that's also the reason why, for instance, model trains are assumed to be potentially protected, too <Schulze in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts 2nd ed., § 9, 205, also for further reference>).
- What you both tell about ensemble of techniques applies also to every non-artistic object. Every automobile, plane and screwdriver is the result of ensemble of techniques. This catapult is not different same. It isn't an abstract scientific model. That is the error of judgement you both make. This catapult is not reduced to what is important, no parts are emphasized by color and form. --Avron (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is by no means extreme. Your error of judgement is just that you assume it to be a pure reproduction or even a "copy." Unfortunately there was nothing to copy. Specifically, the creator did not copy an existing catapult as realistically as possible. Why is this distinction so important? As Jim pointed out rightly, what is protected here is the combination of different objects, the "ensemble of techniques." There was no reason to combine those in the exact manner the creator did here. He did choose this arrangement (instead of myriads of different arrangements imaginable given the ancient descriptions) for a purpose: And that purpose was not to create a one-to-one copy but to create a model in a way that makes it particularly easy for the viewer to distinguish between parts of the catapult by reducing the model to what is important, and by emphasizing certain parts of it through color and form. —Pill (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- With this we can't keep any "reproductions" of old things when they aren't 100% copies. As I said this is an extreme interpretation of german law. In technical choises doesn't make this catatapult a artistic object.--Avron (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- For me this is not a model. It is a working reproduction. I've seen application of such reproduction in live reenactments (Category:Roman_legion_reenactments). The reproduced weapons do the same thing what they did in the ancient roman times. This DR may be a precedent, because with the same argumentaion you may delete reproductions of uniforms like File:Centurion 2 Boulogne Luc Viatour.jpg, other equipment like File:Roman_handmill_from_first_century.jpg or weapons like File:Balliste_1.jpg--Avron (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Avron, note that it is also assumed to apply to "models of machines, vehicles, technical facilities, buildings, cities, gardens etc." (Loewenheim in Schricker/Loewenheim 4th ed., § 2, 198; own translation). It cannot be a work of applied arts due to the lack of any "application" -- it doesn't have a particular (technical) "purpose" (here, specifically, it isn't designed, say, for use in the military). Accordingly, it is not eligible for "design protection" (Geschmacksmusterschutz), hence it cannot possibly be assumed that the degree of originality required for protection is lower here (for this reasoning, see BGH I ZR 119/93; GRUR 1995, 581). Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: though this may be borderline Jcb (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
