Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luanda street scene (6178282208).jpg

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:Luanda street scene (6178282208).jpg

Is FOP OK in Angola? Mhhossein ^talk 12:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 Keep What research have you done to establish this? My guess is none. But if you look at Article 29 of the Angolan Law on Authors' Rights (No. 4/90 of march 10, 1990) you'll see that it states "Uses lawful without authorization: (c) reproduction of ...works shown permanently in a public place". There are later amendments to this law, but none alters that article. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind giving us the url to the mentioned law? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked the law, thanks to your url. However, there's still a major condition which I don't think you had paid attention to. The article reads: "...on condition that the title and the name of the author are stated and that the work is respected." --Mhhossein ^talk 14:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's be clear on what we're talking about here. I presume you query the buildings in the background of the photograph, which would be protected as "works of ... architecture" in Article 6(i) of the linked law. I don't think the image could be construed as disrespectful. They constitute about 50% of the image, so a de minimis argument would probably fail. However, we have numerous images in Category:Buildings in Luanda, and if this one goes, so must all the others. I think it would be an undue burden to expect photographers to make enquiries as to the names and architects of every building they photograph, and we should therefore read the law as if the words "where known" were included. If you ask the legislators or judiciary of Angola whether they intended such an onerous burden to prevail, I'm sure they would say not. However, I have sent an email to the cultural affairs section of the Angola Embassy in London and hope they can clarify this for us. As I pointed out to them "We would hate to lose all our images of buildings in Angola". Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

We never keep a bunch of violating files, do we? So, if needed, we'll remove all of them. The words of law are selected precisely verbatim and we'll never alter the law by reading it "as if the words 'where known' were included". We must act based on what we have at hand, not based on what we expect or guess. Moreover, we can't accept the work as de minimis; Just see that the car and the bus make less than a quarter of the whole surface area. I'm sure that you hate to keep files in violation of copyright. Thanks for the email, although I think written law is priored over other things. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (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.

File:Luanda street scene (6178282208).jpg

De minimis does not apply here. Wikicology (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The issue here isn't de minimis, it's Freedom of Panorama in Angola and until that issue is decided, dm is irrelevant. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I don't know about Angolan copyright law but usually the work has to be above a certain Threshold of originality. I really don't see that in this generic buildings. --Magnus (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Delete As I said before, the work is violating Angloa's copyright law by not crediting the author. It's certainly somewhere above TOO. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Keep Commons FOP page says Angola has FOP. We have a long standing practice not to act on a specific file. If the information is wrong, please discuss that first on the appropriate venue, before nominating any file for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Angloa has FOP? Did you know that Angola's FOP law has a major 'if'; "...on condition that the title and the name of the author are stated and that the work is respected." Now, which of the title or author is stated? The best action was to nominate this violation for deletion and you closed the discussion without knowing/reading the comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment --- FoP exception does not eliminate the need for a license from the photographer. BTW....FoP exception vary from country to country. There is a freedom of Panorama in Nigeria and Angola (for example) but the terms and conditions are not the same. In the case of Angola, the copyright law state that "reproduction of "works shown permanently in public" is allowed "without the authorization of the author and without payment of remuneration on condition that the title and the name of the author are stated and that the work is respected.". Can anyone point me to where the architect was credited? Unless the architect is credited, that image remain a copyright violation of the architect's work. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's not a valid reason for deletion. It would be easy to fix if we know the location. However seeing the poor composition, and the lack of a useful description, I don't mind if this is deleted as "out of scope". Currently not used. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yann, Angola's copyright law requires that authors be credited for FoP exception to apply. Your personal opinion is not useful here. The author is not credited and this exclusively violates Angola's copyright law on FoP. "It would be easy to fix if we know the location" is not a valid reason to keep this image. BTW... Out of scope does not apply here as the image may be used on Luanda/Angola related articles. Please, note that every images on Wikimedia Commons don't have to be used on Wikipedia articles to be realistically useful for educational purpose. This image is a copyvio and should be deleted per our precautionary principle and not because the image is out of scope. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yann, that's good. You seem to have move a step forward and have accepted that there's a problem which needs to be fixed; "It would be easy to fix if we know the location"??? See COM:PRP. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Before we talk about FOP we need to find something in the picture that is eligible for copyright. I am not familiar with Angolan case law but in the background we have just regular apartment buildings with standard features and design elements that are functionally required. Buildings like these wouldn't be eligible for copyright in the United States and many other countries. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Kept: Flickr license has been verified, and there is nothing above ToO in this photo. Ruthven (msg) 12:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)