Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heilig-Geist-Kirche Emmerich 09 PM15.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.
copyvio, contemp. artworks, no fop. / Urheberrechtsverletzung, zeitgenössische Kunstwerke; keine Panoramafreiheit. Martin Sg. (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Deutsch: :
Speedy keep Wieso copyvio, und keine Panoramafreiheit? Ich stand draussen vor dem Fenster und habe durch das Fenster hindurch fotografiert! Eine starke Indikation dadür ist das es bislang kein einzige andere 'Innenaufname' in diese Serie gibt. Und: Rechts sieht man das die Fenster bis zum Fußboden reichen, links sieht man gerade noch einen Streifen des Fensterrahmens. Der Beweislieferung das dieses Bild im Innenraum aufgenommen wurde liegt nun beim Nominator. Kein anderes Hilfsmittel wurde verwendet als nur der Kamara selber.
( {int:Talkpagelinktext}}) 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep Wieso copyvio, und keine Panoramafreiheit? Ich stand draussen vor dem Fenster und habe durch das Fenster hindurch fotografiert! Eine starke Indikation dadür ist das es bislang kein einzige andere 'Innenaufname' in diese Serie gibt. Und: Rechts sieht man das die Fenster bis zum Fußboden reichen, links sieht man gerade noch einen Streifen des Fensterrahmens. Der Beweislieferung das dieses Bild im Innenraum aufgenommen wurde liegt nun beim Nominator. Kein anderes Hilfsmittel wurde verwendet als nur der Kamara selber.
English: : Speedy keep What you mean copyvio, no FOP? I was standing outside and took the image trough a window. A strong indication to prove this, is the fact that there is no other 'interiors' in this series. Plus: to the right you can see that the windows are that tall and low, to the left you can see a glimpse of the windowframe. Delivering proof that the photo was taken inside would now be upon the nominator. It's not upon innocence to prove innocence. No other aid was used but the camera itself.
Peli ( {int:Talkpagelinktext}}) 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep What you mean copyvio, no FOP? I was standing outside and took the image trough a window. A strong indication to prove this, is the fact that there is no other 'interiors' in this series. Plus: to the right you can see that the windows are that tall and low, to the left you can see a glimpse of the windowframe. Delivering proof that the photo was taken inside would now be upon the nominator. It's not upon innocence to prove innocence. No other aid was used but the camera itself.
Keep - No need to delete this image, all the arguments are given above. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also the nominator is known for their many deletion request, so that is something to keep in mind. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep as the image was taken from outside of the building. This is OK per our rules: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public: Despite the somewhat ambiguous wording, a work is located "in" a public place if it can be observed from a public place.[45] In other words, what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public. Raymond 17:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Raymond. There is no need to voting, but Peli asked for my opinion on this DR. The text on COM:FOP Germany as cited by Raymond is clear. The image (unpixelated version) can be kept, because the artwork inside the church is photographed from a public place. The pixelated version can be deleted imho. Ellywa (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Kept, maybe @Ellywa: can delete the 'pixelated' ("ugly") version? - Thanks.
- - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Done Ellywa (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
