Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antwerpen 1930s Boerentoren.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:Antwerpen 1930s Boerentoren.jpg

[edit]

and

COM:FOP#Belgium. 84.61.149.75 20:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a more specific tag. This is a building build in the 1931. Nothing to do with "Modern pieces of art". A complete motivation is necessary. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteThis is a FOP issue. no real need to get more specific about it. The two architects died in 1958 and 1973 respectively. So these images should be removed. --Vera (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al discussion about this building should be done in one thread centraly, not every image individualy.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merged all DR;s with this one. --Vera (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


 KeepThe no-FOP rule on buildings in Belgium is restricted to buildings wich are considered "artwork". Not standaard everyday buildings. This means distinctive creative buildings. This building was one of the first "American" skyscrapers in the style of the late 1920's. (stepped pyramids) Locally the building was distinctive and unusual. The architect did no more than copy the style of the American skyscrapers at the time. Is this creative work? There are no special architectural details such as with Horta. (design windows, etc) Only boring square windows and concrete. The only special feature is the box on top and some decorated coloms in the front.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 architects worked on its design, There are ornamental statues featured on it's façade. It was remarkable enough to be featured on a post card. It was one of the first of its kind in Europe. --Vera (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was discussed in the Dutch wikipedia but no conclusion was reached.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we've been here before--Vera (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think FOP applies here. DimiTalen 09:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean to say  Delete then? --Vera (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, because his comment, Freedom of panorama applies here, is literally interpreted "it can be kept". SPQRobin (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no FOP in Belgium, this makes no sense --Vera (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One argument that could be made is that the 1930's post card must have gotten permission to use the image of the building commercially. But we're not actually sure the author of the post card has been dead long enough. --Vera (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A known building. Please do more usefull things than trying to delete usefull pictures. No need for copyright mania. If you delete this you can delete 90% of the pictures at Wikipedia. Only buildings were the author had declared that pictures are forbidden should be deleted like the Atomium and so on. A picture of the Boerentoren will not harm anybody. So strongly in favour of keeping the pictures.


BTW: I think the request is made by a vandal. Look at his user page. It's clearly a nomination to harm Wikipedia. --Zuydkamp (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(wie deze afbeelding verwijderd is eigenlijk niets meer dan een ingelogde vandaal. We moeten de wet nu ook strikter dan noodzakelijk interpreteren. )

You clearly don't know what this is about. Copyright doesn't work that way. You have copyright protection, unless you give it away. Not the otherway around. Not all countries concider architectural buildings as copyrightable, Belgium does. It's not trolling, you can't publish pictures of buildings from Belgium on a commercial basis if you don't have permission of the owner to do so. --Vera (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the building itself is copyrighted. But that's not necessary the case for pictures of it, especially for pictures taken from the street. That's just a (very) strict interpretation of the law. Just a few organisation interpreted it so strict (like Atomium vzw). Let's follow that strict interpretation only when necessary. For other buildings there is no need for it since the change that somebody will complain is very limited.
So please  Keep. 1Veertje, are are not helping Wikipedia.--__ wɘster 11:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I share the opinion of Smiley.tourist. --Stefn (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - There is indeed no panorama freedom in Belgium. Modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photograph without permission of the artwork copyright holder. However, on these pictures either parts of a building and street view, or several buildings and street view represent a city view, the image does not single out or shows a detailed view of the copyright protected building, so this is de minimis. Kvdh (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case in:
and arguably neither so in the other pictures. --Vera (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - this building is no "artwork", only a sort of copy of the stepped style of the American buildings from late 1920's. Further on, in Belgium there is absolutely no strict interpretation of the law. (only when the copyright holder is asking for). Pictures of this building are not blurred on Google Street View. Even the Flemish gouvernment (Vlaamse gemeenschap) is publishing pictures about this building which states that the FOP issue is almost dead letter in Belgium. Sonuwe (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Vera. It's there because they have some common sense. You clearly haven't. And to be honest I think users like you are much more 'bad for commons' than copying Google's common sense policy. --__ wɘster 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that there is no support to delete the images. Can we please close this discussion now?--__ wɘster 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by consensus you mean that people are saying "keep because fop" in a non-fop country, saying that the building is an incidental feature when there are close-ups of the statues on its façade, and the fact that there is a previous DR that deleted the images, then yes, close this DR and remove these images already. Non-fop countries suck but this is a very clear violation of their copyright. Like Edodero said, this isn't a discussion on weather or not there is FOP in Belgium, there isn't. --Vera (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a mistrial since people seem to skip over the part where this DR concerns multiple images. I would suggest starting over. --Vera (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no COM:FOP#Belgium. Dura lex, sed lex. According to COM:PRP, the fact that a copyright holder seems to tolerate derivative works, has no relevance for Wikimedia Commons, unless the copyright holder has the work explicitly licensed under a free license. --84.61.164.191 13:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. That's not workable. We can delete every photo then. There is no consensus to delete these photos so discussion closed.--__ wɘster 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No FOP in Belguim. FASTILYs (TALK) 02:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Antwerpen_1930s_Boerentoren.jpg&oldid=325887039"