Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.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.
This file was initially tagged by Bertux as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Work of art or architecture — no Freedom of Panorama inside churches in the Netherlands Vysotsky (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep This image shouldn't be deleted. Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings, as can be checked in the Dutch Copyright Act, par. 18. Proof can be seen in the thousands of images of the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. (450,000 images, many thousands from interiors, also in churches). Vysotsky (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings indeed, but it only applies to interiors if they are considered to be public space. The question is whether this church might be considered as public space. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment 1. Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings, as long as the buildings are open to the general public (werk "permanent in openbare plaatsen", Dutch Copyright Act, par. 18, see above). 2.The Andrieskerk in Amsterdam was (before the corona pandemic) regularly opened to the general public. From the website of the church: "Regelmatig is in ons gebouw een tentoonstelling te zien. [...] De exposities in De Andrieskerk zijn rond de Mensenwijdingsdienst vrij te bezoeken." ("Expositions are held regularly, and can be visited around de Mensenwijdingsdienst free of charge"). I made the photographs during one of these expositions. 3. The Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed has donated approx. half a million photographs to Commons, all under CC-BY-SA, in line with the Dutch Copyright Act. Others have done the same, see this category -and dozens of similar categories with tens of thousands photos of Dutch church interiors in Commons. There are even other websites like reliwiki.nl that offer photos of religious heritage, of both church exteriors and church interiors. It is therefore quite clear that these 3 photographs are correctly licensed, because of Dutch Freedom of Panorama. Vysotsky (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings indeed, but it only applies to interiors if they are considered to be public space. The question is whether this church might be considered as public space. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discusiioin. COM:FOP Netherlands does not mention churches as not OK like musea (for which you have to pay a fee). So imho these images can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
Photo was taken on private property with a ban on photography, expressed with a sign next to the entrance (see: https://ibb.co/JcTv4ZZ). The earlier decision to keep the file, based on Dutch Freedom of Panorama, doesn't apply as public entrance is restricted. Beer8beer (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for this deletion request. (1) The photo that you refer to was taken in 2022, around Saturday 7 May. The depicted sign wasn't visible in 2019, otherwise I wouldn't have made the photographs. (2) The building is no private property, as I could walk in without any restrictions. (3) If there is a ban on photography in the building, how is it possible that the Christengemeenschap website features 14 photographs of recent expositions? (4) The current version of the Christengemeenschap website features this text: "In ons kerkgebouw zijn regelmatig tentoonstellingen te zien. We tonen beeldend werk van leden en belangstellenden, of van mensen die op een andere wijze een binding hebben, of zoeken met onze kerk. De exposities in De Andrieskerk zijn rond de Mensenwijdingsdienst vrij te bezoeken." Vysotsky (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete Thank you for your answer. The Andrieskerk consists of multiple rooms, of which one is assigned for exhibitions and gatherings (to which you reffer) and the one of which you took some photographs that I nominated for deletion is assigned for services. The depicted sign (of which I took a photo recently to show you in this deletion request) was placed there already more then 10 years ago. If you need a prove of that, I can look for an older photo. The prediction is specificly for the service room (the sign is next to the entrace of that room), the exhebitions are always in the main (more public accessible) part of the building. --Beer8beer (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I noticed that (other) photographs of the interior of the Andrieskerk in Amsterdam feature in at least three websites online, a.o. ReliWiki (photographs made in 2015). To my knowledge there is no juridical obstacle in the Netherlands (not re copyright nor otherwise) to use photographs of interiors of churches or other sacred buildings. Vysotsky (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Dear @Vysotsky, the argument that photograps of the interiour of the building are featured on other websites as well, is off course a fallacy. Besides that, in this case it's about pictures of the religious painting, some other photographs I know about are from the organ. Despite that, I explained why I nomitated this pictures for deletion and will explain that to other photographers as well. I hope you understand that. Beer8beer (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment A discussion about these two photographs simultanious took place at the Dutch Wikipedia, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Andrieskerk_(Amsterdam). A board member of the church explained the importance of the request and why photographs of the sacred part of the building are not OK. It can be helpfull for this deletion request to take notice of that talk page. Beer8beer (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's an unexpected way to react on a stretched-out hand. It seems all formal arguments for deletion have now run aground. The existence of other photographs of this room (including the painting) is not a fallacy, but proof of the fact that the room has in the past been open to at least three other photographers. Vysotsky (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The formal argument for deletion you are looking for in this case is the prediction of taking photos in the sacred room (see the picture I included in the deletion request above). Next to that, a board member of the church (and thus a legal representative) explained the vision behind that prediction and asked for deletion as well. That you could walk in freely on the day you took the photos doesn't change the fact that it is private property and house rules apply.
- That you decided to remove the two pictures from the Dutch Wikipedia - the 'stretched-out hand' - is kind of you but doesn't change the fact that they are still available for the community, exactly the reason I started the discussion here and not on one of the Wikipedias where the pictures are used. The removal on the Dutch Wikipedia isn't an answer to the question: to delete the picture for further use online and can also be re-added to the Dutch page without any discussion.
- Last: images of the sacred room are always being handled in the same way: ask for deletion and explain why. Hopefully you can understand that, but it seems we unfortunately have a different view in this case. Beer8beer (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- It is possible that the church has a cause of action against the photographer, but that is not our concern here. Our policy is well established that we are not converned with local rules frobidding photography. see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Museum_and_interior_photography. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
