Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rote Flora Februar 2019 (I).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:Rote Flora Februar 2019 (I).jpg

[edit]

copyvio| probalbly punishable content Alopetyp (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the content punishable? --E4024 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Panorama! Freedom of Speech! Punishability springs from alopetype's imagination.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/article216412251/Das-ist-der-Abtreibungsgegner-der-so-gerne-Aerzte-anzeigt.html
The picture of the face is published without perssion of thr owner. That is punishbale according the german Copyrightlaw. There ist even a criminal charge filed because of this. poster, sie the article of the Hamburger Abendblatt ablove. Alopetyp (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Freedom of Panorama. I don't need a permission to take a photo of a wall from public ground.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is is foto from a public building. It shows a poster with the painting of the face of person, who uses the pseudony Markus Krause. The was a controversal dipsut on the discussion of this article, wheather is real name should be mentioned in the article. There is a legal disput between the person with the pseudonym Markus Krause an sereveral medias. On 15.02.2019 the court of Hamburg will decide weather it is allowed to mention the real name. The poster directs on the trial mention the full name "YANNIC HENDRICKS" and also contains a drawing of his face. But the person with the Pseudonym never allowed to publish fotos of his face. So the poster on the public building (Rote Flora) is probalby illegal and punishable. And so ist is also not legal to publish the foto of the poster, where you see his face, on Wikimedia.
The trial you mention is between Yannic Hendricks and a former Member of the local parliament and journalist, and has got nothing to do with this photo.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this has something to do with this photo. The foto refers to the trial. Is says "Yannic Hendricks filed severs criminal charges against docots, who inform about abortion. Now he fills criminal charges againt people, who publish his name. The trial will starts on 15th february. Abolish § 218, § 219a". Alopetyp (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're using this trial as an argument why this photo is illegal. That doesn't work. The trial hasn't happened yet and it's not about this photo or its conzents.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the trail the courts just have to decide, wheather in name can be mentioned not wheather the photo can be published. The photo has been published without the permission of the persos whose face you can see. So it ist obvious that the unathorized publshing of the photo of is face is unlawfull. Alopetyp (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making things up. That's not what that trial is about. And where is this photo you're going on about?.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make things up. The trial is exactly about the question wheather Kersten Artus is allowed to mention his real name. She didn't publish photos of him. Of course I'm talking about the photo "Rote Flora Februar 2019 (I).jpg", because this foto shows the poster on the "Rote Flora" which contains his face, wihtout his permission. Alopetyp (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with Yannick Hendrick's actions, but even if he were a criminal (which he is not), such a public pillory is not in order. A blatant violation of the shown person's personal rights – the banner itself and of course all published photos of it. And besides, also a copyright violation. Since the banner is certainly not installed permanently, there is no freedom of panorama. Delete. --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: We have to differentiate between the purpose of the picture on the billboard and the picture of the billboard that is requested for deletion.
    While one might disagree with the motive of the pesons who put up the billboard, according to NPOV Wikipedia must have no opinion on this fact. We merely recognise its existence.
    The only issue to be discussed here is, whether the picture of the billboard must be deleted according to the WP regulations. And the result is simple and obvious: The picture itself is clearly covered under German regulation for FoP. The only questionable issue is the "copyvio" by the creator of the billboard picture which is obviously not his own work (Freedom of Art & Freedom of opinion vs. Recht am eigenen Bild). -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 20:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The picture itself is NOT clearly covered under German regulation for FoP. It it obvious that the banner/poster on the bulding is unlawfull becoause is show the face of "Markus Krause" in public without his permisson. This is punshable accourding to § 33 KunsturhG. And so also the public photo of the illegal banner/poster of course is illegal aswell. Alopetyp (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep § 33 KunsturhG is not relevant - relevant would be § 22 KunsturhG - but as Hendricks is a person who actively seeks publicity I would refer to § 23 Abs. 1 KunsturhG: "Ohne die nach § 22 erforderliche Einwilligung dürfen verbreitet und zur Schau gestellt werden: Bildnisse aus dem Bereiche der Zeitgeschichte" and regard this as a "Bildnis aus dem Bereiche der Zeitgeschichte" ("Portrait from the field of contemporary history"). --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is surely Not a "portrait from Tage contempory history". The banner/Poster isnothing more than a public pillory! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alopetyp (talk • contribs)

 Comment: it is permanent since the purpose is "permanent" for the lifetime of the poster (see: Dreyer in Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht, 4. Auflage 2018, § 59 Rn. 17 (weil „für ihre gesamte ‚Lebenszeit‘“ der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet) -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 13:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not permanent. The poster/banner Just will there just a few days. The purpose is not permanent. --Alopetyp (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion but a piece of information: on 15 of February there will be no judgment at Hamburg Country Court because Yannic Hendricks filed another lawsuit against Kersten Artus. (source) The trial was suspended so we won’t know anything new tomorrow. Best regards and sorry for my poor English, Agathenon (talk) 13:27, 14 eFebruary 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Agathenon for Sharing this information! But the court of Hamburg will mit decide weather it is legalto publish his face anyway but only weather it is legal mention his name als the person, who filed the several criminal Charles again doctor who providers abortion services according to paragraf 218a of the german criminal Code. (StGB), in Public. --Alopetyp (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Most things Alopetyp is stating here are plain wrong and have nothing to do with laws in Germany or the purpose of the upcoming trial. Besides that he has a clear COI as stated in "de". "Reinhard Kraasch" and "Wo st 01" gave the correct laws and interpretations here. The poster is clearly under FoP and the picture of the head is an illustration and therefore no copyvio from whatever. The picture can be shown (see Reinhard Kraasch) since this guy is seeking public by himself (with interviews etc.) and his actions (dozens of complains against physicians to prove a point/make politics), he's a "Person der Zeitgeschichte" and as that everybody can show even photos of him. --Mirer (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The interview was anonym and has nothing to to with the right to publish fotos of him withous his permnission. Alopetyp (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's still no photo to be seen.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I may repeat a quote of yourself: "The trial is exactly about the question wheather Kersten Artus is allowed to mention his real name". So even if the court concedes that Ms. Artus may not mention Yannic Hendricks name in public, this quite clearly shows we can stop talking about this verdict, because it has neither happened yet nor concerns this photo or wikimedia commons.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a drawing of his face. It is the same like a photo. The court in Hamburg will not decide weather the poster/banner is legal. But it is obvoius (see above) that the drawing/painting/photo fo his face must not be shown in public without the explict permission of "Markus Krause".Alopetyp (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not obvious. See Reinhard Kraasch and others above. Still no arguments, only speculations.--22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Iuploaded a retouches version. --Stefan Bellini (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted! Please upload a NEW picture as new picture. Don't overwrite existing ones. Censorship is not part of the way Commons is operated. --Mirer (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Done. --Stefan Bellini (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have retouches version, so this photo shold be deleted.132.252.177.250 13:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having a second photo is no reason to delete anything.Hinnerk11 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be closed and the image be kept. The Hamburg County court ruled yesterday that the unpixelized picture’s publication was legal, see here. Best regards, Agathenon (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rote_Flora_Februar_2019_(I).jpg&oldid=354545614"