Commons:Deletion requests/File:Genova-panorama dal santuario di ns incoronata3.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:Genova-panorama dal santuario di ns incoronata3.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Italy. (COM:FOP#Italy) 84.250.17.211 13:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • But there is in the USA, so this is outside the jurisdiction of Italy, I figure. - 174.16.221.111 14:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per Commons:Licensing, Commons only accepts to host free cultural works such as images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Unfortunately Italy's copyright legislation extends to architectural buildings such as this bridge built in 1963–1967, for which the copyright has not expired as of today and thus the use is restricted against Commons policy.

      Wikimedia Foundation hosted wikis may have allow hosting images locally for fair use, but "fair use" is not allowed on Commons per Commons:Fair use.

      Unless permission is received from the copyright holder (most likely the bridge architect) via Commons:OTRS, I believe this file should be deleted – thus, this nomination. 84.250.17.211 15:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ Giuffrida, Angela (2018-08-14). Genoa bridge collapse: at least 23 killed, Italian official says. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2018-08-15.
  •  Keep --Isiwal (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Besides being well below the threshold of originality (there are thousands of bridges of this type worldwide), the bridge is not even the main motive of this photo. It principally shows a certain part of the city of Genoa, of which the bridge is just one of numerous elements. --Voyager (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Below threshold of originality, if we're following Italian Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane [1]. --Ruthven (msg) 10:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the bridge was commisioned and built by the Italian Government in the 1960s. So, according to Italian copyright law, all copyright rights belong to Italian Government, and any italian public administration can have economic copyright use for 20 years. --Holapaco77 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the bridge has collapsed, so this detailed historic image of the bridge can never be replaced. It is excellent image that will be able to be annotated in future to show the cause and path of collapse, which will become an excellent record for teaching new civil engineers. Mollwollfumble (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me a general note: since there are several RFDs regarding pictures of the same bridge, I believe it would be better to unify the discussion in one of them so that we can discuss this particular situation once, and all together.
Secondly, I have to point out some elements, once again thinking to all these images as a whole. (sorry, I couldn't make it shorter)

  1. the bridge was a true creative original work; it is studied in many universities, sometimes they use scaled models to teach students the special ideas the Author put in this creation. I won't get into a specific, eventually boring detail: Morandi used many [then] new solutions into his project, and they largely were unprecedented. No doubt, it was a creative work. It contained original solutions to technical problems (Italian copyright act, art. 99). It was a protected work.
  2. If the bridge was created and realised on behalf of a client (a public institution, in this case), this should transfer the copyright in the hands of the client (the Italian State, probably), otherwise the Author (or his heir) is still the owner of all the related rights. The Italian copyright act explicitly says so at art. 11. At the moment we don't know if Morandi created his plan autonomously, on his own, and later 'sold' it to the State; or if he received a commission to conceive it. For sure, the bridge was built by the Italian State (through one of its agencies). However, this doesn't make any difference to us, here, if we don't add to the discussion the element that in Italy, when it is the State (or a Region, a Province, a City Council or a public institution), the protection ends 20 years after the first publication, and not 70 years pma. No need to investigate, by now.
  3. The bridge was an architectural creative work, but now it has collapsed; this means that it doesn't exist any more. The point is that the creative work is forever lost. This work will never exist again unless it is re-built in the same place without the slightest difference from the original, in full coherence with its plan (and this will not happen, they just cannot re-build it again where it was). The work is lost.
  4. Morandi's ideas are still protected, since this work has been conceived and translated into technical drawings which will keep the faithful record of Morandi's creative act.
  5. An architectural work is made of two main aspects: its conceiving and planning (the idea) and its material realisation (the building). Both are protected under the Italian Law as a work of architecture. See the Italian copyright act here: art.2 says that the law protects "the drawings and the opere of architecture" (and 'opere' means the material object built upon the drawings). The planning, in the form of its technical drawings, is protected by 'ordinary' provisions. The 'opera', the building, too; but in this case it doesn't exist any more. Whenever we talk about the collapsed bridge, we are talking about a work that does not exist [any more]. And if it does not exist, there is nothing to protect. The only remaining object of protection is Morandi's idea, his technical drawings, which are not what we are interested into.

I regret I used a rough form in my previous posts, and in particular I regret I added a pointless reference to EDP (and I copy-pasted it across all the requests). EDP is something well beyond fair use, yet this is not a case of fair use (and I personally don't like it at all); rather, this is an uncommon case of a protected work that ceases to exist. And it's the case of the object of protection that disappears, bringing with itself all the protected rights. You can't protect something that doesn't exist, and an architectural work exist only as long as it is there, at its place, in its entirety. In this sense only, we can read the NO-FOP clause: an architectural work is protected because it is in a given place, contributing to shape that place, being a constituent part of the 'panorama'. But when it's no more there, there is nothing more to protect and the picture becomes a document, a historical proof of what once was there. The bridge is not a work, any more, it was a work until yesterday it became a tragedy and a bunch of ruins. The picture is not reproducing the panorama in Genova, it witnesses how it once was. 'Panorama' is by its mere nature a current state of the shapes, a current landscape. No one ever suggested to delete landscape or cityscape paintings of centuries ago, you wouldn't delete Canaletto's works just because of NO-FOP: panorama is an always-current, and an only-current concept. The bridge left Genova's panorama and this loss cannot be reverted. --g (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning seems nonsensical. Temporary landscape art, such as Christo's, remains copyright-protected, including images made during its period of existence, after the work of art itself has ceased to exist, subject to laws (and expiration periods) as applicable for each legal entity (such as countries, EU, etc). Hence, no actual Wrapped Reichstag images in Commons.
Above you say "...No need to investigate, by now..." regarding the likely expired state-owned copyright for the bridge in Italy. On the contrary, that's all that matters. Likely the copyright *has* expired, and thus these images should be kept, unreservedly, if that is the case, and removed, unreservedly, if that is not the case and no other legal exception can be invoked. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
a) Italian copyright act gives specific provisions for architectural works, different from those regarding artworks. And I mentioned Canaletto because he painted architectural works, thus depicting Venice's panorama; to produce his artworks he painted what today would be prohibited to share, under the NO-FOP, if panorama was an undetermined context in time. Christo didn't make an architectural work, he made an artwork.
b) an investigation is needed, in case you believe that the collapse didn't extinguish the object of protection, because at the moment we don't know whether the bridge was built by the State directly (a Ministry, a State Agency, ...) or through one of its public companies (i.e. ANAS): these public companies operate in different legal ways, and we should check their precise juridical status and the effects on the evaluation of copyright. Not easy, not quick. We'll check, if necessary, but this will take a lot of time.
c) Morandi's creation, I repeat, is still protected in (and via) his drawings, and if I ask Morandi's heirs to show me the rights they inherited, so that I can buy them, they can show me and sell me the drawings; not the work, any more. The protection against an eventual plagiarism (a smart engineer builds the same bridge somewhere else), is still there, plagiarism will be demonstrated via Morandi's drawings. No-FOP is about the presence of Morandi's creation in the configuration of the landscape. It's about what the law calls "opere", not their drawings. This "opera" is down. --g (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're half wrong, and alas wrong on the essential points – and probably right on some less important details that have no real bearing on the issue. Either it is copyright-protected (or under a similar protection that would make it unacceptable for Commons), which is absolutely and utterly unrelated with it existing in three-dimensional life-size space, in drawings, in scale models, in life-size models, copies or images of whatever kind etc, or, alternatively, it isn't under such protection (any more), which is also, and equally, unrelated to it still standing 100%, or 0%, or anything in between. Your speculations are quite unhelpful: I'd suggest someone else check whether the images of the bridge (collapsed/uncollapsed) are suitable for Commons – I fear you might be led astray by unfounded speculations. Could WMF legal look it up and/or contact someone understanding the Italian legal system in these matters? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
«In particolare sono comprese nella protezione: [...] 5) i disegni e le opere dell'architettura;» - ICA, art.2 c. 5.
This is the text. There certainly will be someone who can translate it better than me. My point was to let everybody know about this text, and certainly I added how I read it. I'm not here to be sure, right, wrong, and I can't share feelings, fears, speculations, 100%s, I prefer sticking to the facts. There is a law, it is there to be read. The point is how it should be read by the Commons' Community. --g (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that Italian law does include (without difference in treatment) "opere della scultura" (sculpture, c. 4), designs (disegni) and works (opere) of architecture (dell'architettura). Also, afaics nothing about the 20 years for bridges or other constructions built by the Italian state, which you mentioned earlier. So, I don't think we have anything here, and don't think we can accept your assertions at face value. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Holapaco and Gianfranco were refering to Law 22 April 1941 n. 633 (here is the text updated to 2016) : article 11 says copyright over creative works created and published under the Italian state, provinces or municipalities belongs to them, and article 29 says that this copyright lasts for 20 years. --Postcrosser (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those two articles are the ones to look at. But by now we don't know if Morandi made his drawing for his client (the State), or he first made them and later "sold" them to the State. Also, we don't know if the entity that built the bridge was a Ministry, another public institution or a public company; in the latter case we still should check whether it was operating as a public entity (diritto pubblico) or as a private one (diritto privato). --g (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're making, again, non-relevant distinctions: at least distinctions appearing nowhere in the cited laws. Whatever happened before "publication" is irrelevant: if the Italian state published (which seems to be the case here) it really doesn't matter whether the designer made his plans before or after being commissioned to have a bridge built according to these plans. The bridge was "published" by being built. 20 years after that publication (1967 + 20 = 1987 → 1 January 1988) the copyright expired, whether at that point the bridge was still standing or not. All photographs made by third parties after 31 december 1987 were free of copyright to the Italian state (or to the architect), and that's it: these photographs (insofar they are free of copyright towards photographers) are suitable for Commons without reservations.
And we need an update to COM:FOP#Italy, which apparently misses the point here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "distinction" is not irrelevant at all, to activate the situation described in art. 11 and 29 it DOES make a difference to check whether the idea was conceived independently or as the fruit of a contract between Morandi and the State. If it wasn't created as an effect of the contract, it is still the full Author's copyright (70pma). And about the building of the bridge, the "Società Condotte" (the entity that officially produced it) was a company owned by the Vatican, hence a private entity, but if it acted as a contractor for the Italian State, we need to understand which was the relationship, which was the Condotte's juridical status for the job, and with what legal effects. Otherwise you can't say who owned the copyright and under which regime.
When I repeat that the law makes a difference between disegni (drawings) and opere (the building) it is because there are two distinct objects of protection. In this case they follow two separate lines of protection, so you have to isolate the drawings from the cement. You have to be very precise because the situation could be quite complicated: Morandi could have planned in a way that doesn't activate art. 11 for drawings while it does for the 'opera'; and the work could have been built by operators that don't trigger the same article for the 'work' while leaving it active for drawings. Any combination is possible, at the moment, since we know so little about. No one ever said it was simple. --g (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "The "distinction" is not irrelevant (etc...)" – nonsense: as customary in copyright law, first publication is all what matters. The "contract" exception possibility of art. 11 does not apply to building projects by the Italian state. Please just read it without complementing it with your own speculations.
Really, your speculations are unhelpful: the Italian law does not "distinguish" drawings (disegni) and works (opere): it mentions them both as falling under the same regulation, explicitly stating that the "mode" (as drawing, as realised construction, as scale model, as 3D animation, or whatever) of first publication has no bearing on how the law applies. When the ideas where conceived, whether they were conceived in someone's head, on a piece of paper, modelled in clay, or whatever, as long as they aren't published it makes no difference to that Italian law. The only thing that matters is when and by whom the first publication happens. In the case of this bridge, that would be the Italian state publishing in 1967 at the latest.
The contractor building the bridge, whether a company owned by the pope or whatever, is also irrelevant: the Italian copyright law as cited makes the one who pays for it (in this case, the Italian state) the one owning the copyright at the time of "publication".
We're also only talking about photographs of the IRL bridge (before and after partial collapse), not about publishing drawings or models by the architect (whether or not these were ever published), which have no bearing on photographic reproductions of the actual built bridge after the state-owned copyright on the bridge expired. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to inform everybody that the Italian law is not that simple. It isn't as simple as we would like it to be, and certainly not as someone describes it. The same existence of a NO-FOP regime has to be deduced, since it's not in any explicit text of any Italian official act. Wikimedia Italia had to request a specific study, that was delivered a couple of weeks ago, just to finally receive a true formal confirmation that we really are in a NO-FOP regime. And now I believe we've taken too much space in this page; time to let other users say how they read the law. --g (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Italian law is certainly not as complex as you would like it to be. As long as you keep adding apparently unnecessary layers of complexity to it, I can speak for myself, thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're at this point because you didn't accept what I had said before: "no need to investigate by now". Now we are investigating, and what have we obtained?
Let's go back to facts. The bridge collapsed. The work does not exist any more. --g (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, instead of letting others speak, as you suggested, you reiterate the initial nonsense, without a single demonstrable support in the applicable laws? No thanks: as said, I can speak for myself, and if unsupported speculation is brought forward, I'll denounce it as before. As said, whether or not the bridge continues to exist (and, BTW, it at least still partially exists), has no bearing on copyright issues of photographs made of it, whether these photographs were made before or after its partial collapse. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Voyager. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Genova-panorama_dal_santuario_di_ns_incoronata3.jpg&oldid=318214810"