Commons:Deletion requests/File:Busy road for bunnies - geograph.org.uk - 970460.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.
Freedom of panorama in the UK for 3D artwork is only valid for those permanently on display in a public place. See COM:FOP#United Kingdom. JD554 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sufficient permanance. The FoP we are arguing about says :sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public). A museum is open 9-5, and this is sufficient for FoP. This wretched model is on the pavement from 9-5 each day, that is permanent. We are not talking about a model that was left unattended for 2 mins by contractors in a public place, allowing it to be covertly snapped. We are talking of a model that is left intentionally in a public place. Anyone know of any case law supporting or opposing this logic? --ClemRutter (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sufficient permanance. 'The artwork' is displayed without an intentional timelimit or any firm plans to remove it from public view after a period of time in the way that an exibition or tempory sculpture has. Oxyman (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The intention is to put the artwork in the shop every night. There are no firm plans that it will be put back out every day. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The intended purpose of the object is to advertize the museum, this purpose is fulfilled by putting it out during museum opening hours Oxyman (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Advertising or not, it's still a 3D artwork. Not that it matters, but it's a cafe and sweet shop not a museum. --JD554 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did not claim that because it's advertizeing it's not 3D artwork. My point was that it's intended purpose is fulfilled by putting it on display during opening hours Oxyman (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Advertising or not, it's still a 3D artwork. Not that it matters, but it's a cafe and sweet shop not a museum. --JD554 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The intention is to put the artwork in the shop every night. That is the permanence. If you can give a reference to case law backing up your interpretation, or an OTRS statement from the shop keeper that he only intends to display it on a temporary basis, then your POV might be worth investigating, until then can I respectively suggest we have more urgent things to discuss. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
