Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pfarrkirche Ötztal-Bahnhof Betonglasfenster.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:Pfarrkirche Ötztal-Bahnhof Betonglasfenster.jpg

Freedom of panorama in Austria doesn't include churches or building interiors and the artist of the stain glass window hasn't been dead for 70+ years. So is clearly copyvio. Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Keep. In Austria, Freedom of Panorama also applies to the interior of public buildings. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Churches aren't public buildings though. See COM:FOP Austria. They barely consider train stations public places. So there's zero reason they would consider a church to be one. The work also has to be a component of the structure and that doesn't include easily replaceable objects like windows. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Österreich: "Innenansicht und Innenarchitektur. Ferner wertet der Oberste Gerichtshof auch Innenräume von Gebäuden, wie etwa Treppenhäuser, Innenhöfe, Gänge, Vorhallen, einzelne Säle und Zimmer sowie Portale und Türen als von der Schrankenregelung privilegiert. [...] Zum Bestandteil des Bauwerks kann nach Auffassung des Obersten Gerichtshofs gar auch die „sogenannte ‚Innenarchitektur‘“ werden. Die von einem Architekten geplante „Gesamtgestaltung eines Raumes (insbesondere einer Wohnung oder eines Geschäftslokals), wobei die einzelnen Möbelstücke und sonstigen Einrichtungsgegenstände nach künstlerischen Gesichtspunkten sowohl aufeinander als auch auf die Beschaffenheit des jeweiligen Raumes abgestimmt werden“, ist in dieser Hinsicht als Teil eines einheitlichen Werkes der Baukunst ebenfalls der Panoramafreiheit zugänglich.[...] Im Fall eines kunstvoll gestalteten Kirchenfensters ist eine isolierte Wiedergabe nach Ansicht des Obersten Gerichtshofs schon deshalb zulässig, weil das Fenster selbst Teil des Bauwerks (und zwar der Außen- und Innenansicht) ist und nicht erst im Kontext des Raumes dazu wird; die Wiedergabe von Werkteilen wiederum ist von der freien Werknutzung aber gerade erfasst."

So, church windows (from in- and outside) are explicitly covered by FoP according to the supreme court (OGH)! --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I've read through the discussions before. Sure someone in the discussion says church windows are permissible. They don't cite the legal statue where that assertion comes from though and anyone can say whatever they want on a random talk page. Obviously we need to know what the actual law says, and as far as I know it says images of buildings interiors and churches aren't covered by FOP. Otherwise where in the legal code is there an exception for interior shots of church windows? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's all in the cited Wiki article, including references. The law itself just says that it is allowed to: "Werke der Baukunst nach einem ausgeführten Bau oder andere Werke der bildenden Künste nach Werkstücken, die dazu angefertigt wurden, sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort zu befinden, zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten, durch optische Einrichtungen öffentlich vorzuführen, durch Rundfunk zu senden und der Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung zu stellen; ausgenommen sind das Nachbauen von Werken der Baukunst, die Vervielfältigung eines Werkes der Malkunst oder der graphischen Künste zur bleibenden Anbringung an einem Orte der genannten Art sowie die Vervielfältigung von Werken der Plastik durch die Plastik." (§ 54 Abs. 1 Z. 5 UrhG) It doesn't restrict it to the outside view. This sentence from the supreme court (OGH) clarifies that FoP includes the interior of buildings and even items inside buildings (and specifically glass windows, as the court case was about glass windows.) --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: Don't confuse the Austrian copyright law with the German one, which indeed seems to be much stricter when it comes to freedom of panorama. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the time or urge to read through a 30 paragraph legal finding. Especially since I have to repeatedly cut and paste it into Google translate to do so. Can you cite the specific sentence that you think is relevant to this? As far as the difference between Austrian and German law, I cited the Commons for the Austrian copyright law and it says exactly what I've been saying it says. So there's no confusion on my part. At the end of the day I could really care either way about this, but if the copyright article is wrong then it needs to be figured through discussion on the copyright articles talk page or at somewhere like the help desk. Obviously a random deletion request isn't the place to override or ignore wider consensus. Especially since it's not the nominators job to read through legal long winded, obtuse legal briefings every time they nominate a file for deletion. That said, I'm more then willing to hold off on this for now if you are willing to have a discussion about it in a more appropriate venue then this so Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria can be changed. I'm not going to just ignore the guidelines for no reason though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, from the little reading I did of the court case, according to the document the subject of the decision was a wing symbol used to identify taxis. I'm really interested to know what wing symbols used to identify taxis has to do with indoor images of church windows, because they are obviously completely different. Also the ruling says it was about glass paintings and not commercial art, and I assume this is a commercial stained glass window. So again, how is he ruling at all relevant to this? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's hard to understand German legal texts if you don't speak German, but that is not my fault. On the contrary, I tried to explain it to you several times in English. "Can you cite the specific sentence that you think is relevant to this?" => That's exactly what I did all the time! The relevant paragraph is § 54 Abs. 1 Z. 5 UrhG: "Es ist zulässig, Werke der Baukunst nach einem ausgeführten Bau oder andere Werke der bildenden Künste nach Werkstücken, die dazu angefertigt wurden, sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort zu befinden, zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten, durch optische Einrichtungen öffentlich vorzuführen, durch Rundfunk zu senden und der Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung zu stellen;" In English that means roughly "It is permissible to reproduce, distribute, show publicly through optical means, broadcast and and make available to the public works of architecture after a building has been completed or other works of fine arts based on workpieces that were made to be permanently in a public place."

I'll try to summarise again: (1) According to Austrian copyright law, architectrual works and artworks that are made to be permanently in a public space may be reproduced. The law does not specify what a public space is and especially – unlike the law in Germany or other countries – it does not restrict it to the outside. (2) The cited OGH sentence makes it clear that the permission granted by the law also applies to the interior of buildings.

I don't know what you mean by "if the copyright article is wrong". The article w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Österreich is correct and cites all relevant legal sources.

"I don't have the time or urge to read through a 30 paragraph legal finding." Then read the Wikipedia article, it sums it up nicely. So you admit that you have no idea of the Austrian copyright law and just put forward delteion requests arbitrarily? --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's hard to understand German legal texts if you don't speak German This has nothing to do with a language issue. It purely has to do with the fact that the law doesn't say what your claiming it does. Don't confuse the two. You said the case was specifically about glass windows inside buildings and it wasn't. Period. Google translate didn't mistakenly miss translate the words "stained glass windows" as "wing symbols used to identify taxis." You just miss-represented the case.

The law does not specify what a public space is. It also applies to the interior of buildings. That's patently false. The law mentions streets and places serving public transport multiple times. It also says the work has to be "Common property", which strongly insinuates that works in non-public, interior places don't qualify. Except where it specifically says otherwise. It should be obvious that a painting in someone's closet isn't "common property." A painting inside of a public transport terminal? Sure, but nowhere does the law say all interiors are acceptable.

The article w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Österreich is correct and cites all relevant legal sources. Cool for the Wikipedia article. Commons' deletion policies aren't usually determined by random Wikipedia articles though. They are different projects. Which is why I cited COM:FOP Austria. That's what we go by. It's essentially based on the copyright laws in Austria and is what I base my deletion requests on. I wouldn't call it arbitrarily. Commons:Copyright rules by territory is usually pretty accurate and what most people go by. So I suggest you read it if your going to try and argue what the law is because no one is going to make a decision based on a random Wikipedia article. Nor should they. To quote COM:FOP Austria "uploading a photograph to Wikimedia Commons is only covered by Austrian Freedom of Panorama if the picture meets the law's criteria regarding type of depicted work, place of photograph and permanence." We can't just toss that requirement out the window because of a random Wikipedia article on de.wikipedia that doesn't even say what your claiming it does. I don't doubt the Wikipedia article is accurate though, your just miss-representing what it says. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know COM:FOP Austria and usually I don't care about random Commons pages, beacuse it's the text of the law that matters and not some random page on Commons. However, this pages says exactly what I am trying to explain to you all the time: "Architectural works may generally be reproduced, including all permanent buildings and other structures as a whole, building parts such as walls, pillars, windows (including church windows), doors, and stairs, a complete view of the interior design. This includes photographs taken in streets and public places, private grounds and the interior of buildings. However, single pieces of furniture or artworks may not be freely reproduced." (my emphasis) I really don't understand your problem. Why can't you just admit that you were wrong and withdraw the deletion request? --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's the text of the law that matters and not some random page on Commons. As far as I'm aware most of those pages are followed and have been edited by copyright lawyer and are pretty accurate summaries of what the law says. Even if there's minor differences though, no website that I'm aware of requires it's users read through a 35 page legal brief before they can report a possible copyright violation. Commons isn't a court of law. We don't need to have 100% provable certainty that a file is copyrighted for it to be deleted, just enough reasonable doubt. No one expects anything more then that. Let alone that users have an intricate knowledge of copyright law and cite it verbatim in a deletion request. This whole process would be essentially worthless if that were the standard.

However, single pieces of furniture or artworks may not be freely reproduced. Are you seriously going to argue that a stained glass window isn't a piece of artwork? The reason the law has that stipulation is because pieces of furniture and artwork can/are commissioned, original designs that are often copyrighted by the artist/designer. Which I think is 100% relevant here since it's not a random non-descript window. Like it wouldn't magically somehow not be a copyright violation if I uploaded a photograph of an otherwise clearly copyrighted artwork just because I tapped it on the wall of a church "because freedom of panorama brah" or whatever. That's not how the law works. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what the cited OGH sentence clarifies: "An Glasfenstern ausgeführte Glasmalereien sind sowohl von innen als auch von außen sichtbar; sie sind daher sowohl Teil der Innen- als auch Teil der Außenansicht. Ihre isolierte Wiedergabe ist auch durch von innen gemachte Aufnahmen schon deshalb zulässig, weil sie Bestandteil des Bauwerkes sind." --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have an issue with that in principle, except the court case 100% revolved around the issue of if the original artist of the window had to be cited or not. Which doesn't really relate to the particulars of stained glass windows in churches and FOOP. That said, to cite from the bottom of the legal brief, "The revision appeal is to be partially granted; the decisions of the lower courts are to be changed in such a way that the defendant is prohibited from duplicating and/or distributing without naming the author." As far as I know people can use images uploaded to Commons without naming the original author of the work in the image. So if anything the ruling just makes my case for me that this image shouldn't be hosted on Commons. I have some other thoughts on the specifics of FOPP and stained glass windows in churches, but I also have to go run some errands. So I'll provide them later. That said, I think the whole "prohibited from duplicating and/or distributing without naming the author" thing really stands on it's own regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a few points to expand on my last message 1. It's ridiculously bad faithed to repeatedly go off about how you only care about the law while citing a court case that didn't have anything to do with FOOP or stained glass windows except for someone randomly mentioning them passing 2. According to an article in the European Journal of Legal Studies, who I assume is legitimate, "In Austria, it is permissible 'to reproduce, distribute, present in public by means of optical devices and broadcast works of architecture after their construction or other works of fine art permanently located in a place used as a public thoroughfare. For copying, distribution and provision to the public, the author is entitled to appropriate remuneration." How exactly is the ability of an artist to seek compensation from people who copy, use, or otherwise distribute images of their work compatible with Commons' hosting and/or usage policies? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the court case was about something different, but the sentence clarified the very point we are talking about: "An Glasfenstern ausgeführte Glasmalereien sind sowohl von innen als auch von außen sichtbar; sie sind daher sowohl Teil der Innen- als auch Teil der Außenansicht. Ihre isolierte Wiedergabe ist auch durch von innen gemachte Aufnahmen schon deshalb zulässig, weil sie Bestandteil des Bauwerkes sind." (How many times have I been citing this now?) While other artworks inside buildings may not be depitcted isolatedly, windows are considered an integral part of the building and are permitted to be reproduced, even isolatedly, from the outside as well as from the inside. The law doesn't say anything about remuneration, by the way. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The court case was about something different, but the sentence clarified the very point we are talking about. And there in is the problem. If you were actually citing "the law" then cool. I'd retract this right now, but that's not what your doing despite all your hemming and hawing about how you only care about what the law says. What you are doing is claiming "the law" says images of stained glass windows are fine to be photographed from inside buildings, but your evidence of that being the case is from a "clarifying sentence" made by a random judge or lawyer in an unrelated legal brief. Which as far as I'm aware doesn't set larger legal precedent. Nor is it in anyway "the law." So where is the actual legal statue that says images of stained glass windows are fine to be photographed from the insides of buildings? Or hell, where is even a court case that determined it as part of an actual legal decision? Because that's not what was determined in this case. It literally had absolutely nothing to do with people taking images of stained glass windows inside churches and if they were covered by FOP or not like you claimed it did. Where's the court case that does? Where's the legal statue that says images of stained glass windows inside churches are covered by FOP? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been citing the law many times, so once again for you: "Es ist zulässig [...] Werke der Baukunst nach einem ausgeführten Bau oder andere Werke der bildenden Künste nach Werkstücken, die dazu angefertigt wurden, sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort zu befinden, zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten, durch optische Einrichtungen öffentlich vorzuführen, durch Rundfunk zu senden und der Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung zu stellen; ausgenommen sind das Nachbauen von Werken der Baukunst, die Vervielfältigung eines Werkes der Malkunst oder der graphischen Künste zur bleibenden Anbringung an einem Orte der genannten Art sowie die Vervielfältigung von Werken der Plastik durch die Plastik." (§ 54 Abs. 1 Z. 5 UrhG) The law does NOT say that "sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort befinden" ("being permanently in a public place") refers to OUTSIDE places only. If you have problems understanding German, I'm sorry, I've really tried to translate and to explain it to you. But now I'll stop. I have no idea why you don't want to understand or what you gain from having this picture deleted that you waste so much time (also my time) on it. Let's see if you find an admin that is willing to follow your flawed arguments. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been citing the law many times So random court cases are laws. Good to know. Whatever you say dude.

The law does NOT say that ("being permanently in a public place") refers to OUTSIDE places only. Obviously, which is why I never claimed it did and referenced that train stations are public places multiple times. Although Commons' copyright rules for Austria uses the term "interiors of buildings," but I never claimed otherwise. Nice strawman though. That said, there's a reason the law refers to specific inside locations as being public places, because the places that it doesn't have exceptions for don't qualify for FoP and the last time I checked there isn't an exception for churches as public places. Just because someone can legally cross the street at a crosswalk doesn't mean they cross it wherever they want to. Some buildings interiors that the law specifically mentions are covered by FoP are OK to take photographs of and others aren't. I really don't get what your finding so hard about that.

If you have problems understanding German Blaming this on a language issues is such a ridiculously petty, biennial way to do things. Sure though dude, your automatically in the right and get your way "because German." Whatever you say. I didn't know there was a rule that only native German speakers could edit files related to Germany. My bad. That's literally been your only argument, just bitch and moan about how your right because you speak German and I don't while you waste time miss citing a bunch of ill relevant nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk)

Oh my god, such a long discussion and you haven't realied that we are talking about AUSTRIA, not GERMANY. And yes, if you neither understand German nor know the difference between Austria and Germany, you shouldn't deal with Austrian legal issues. Luftschiffhafen (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination and COM:FOP Austria. The artist de:Inge Höck is apparently alive (turned 100 years old recently), and the file can be restored 70 years after her death. --Rosenzweig τ 15:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Restored: OK, I've reconsidered after Luftschiffhafen's reply. I did read the discussion, but apparently missed the fact that Austria's Supreme Court does consider church windows an integral part of the structure that are covered by freedom of panorama if photographed from a public interior space. All the better, then we can keep these kinds of images from Austria. --Rosenzweig τ 19:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)