Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salvador.Dali-Profile.of.Time.JPG
The image is faithful photography of a piece of art (sculpture), therefore should be considered as a derivative work (author or designer, S. Dali didn't die more than 70 years ago, so it's not PD by definition). In Poland we have the freedom of panorama law, however it clearly says that freedom of dissemination is allowed only for works permanently exhibited on commonly accessible public roads, streets, squares or gardens'. Moroever it precises that the works exhibited in commonly accessible public collections such as museums, galleries, and exhibition halls, though only in catalogues and printed publications for promotion of such works and also in the press and television current event reports, however, within the limits justified by information purposes,, which of course is not compatible with free licencses. Here, this sculpture is installed in non-public space (however publicly accessible) as the law defines it, because it is installed in a shoping mall. Therefore it's faitful photographic depiction shouldn't fall under FoP law and the author of the photography cannot aply his free licenses for this derivative work, which means that is should be deleted. Herr Kriss (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete It's just enough to follow this diagram > File:Derivative Works Decision Tree.svg (NO, YES, NO, NO). And a shoping mall is not a public space according to the polish law (however it is accessible for everyone, but many roads are accessible for everyone as well, but they are not public roads according to the law. e.g. internal roads/shoping malls parking lots etc). Masur (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep In my opinion this open public area fulfills intention of legislators to accept freedom of panorama in such places (which is not museum, art-gallery, exhibition hall etc., but something rather like park or garden), but literally you are right, there is a roof twenty meter over the installation. Julo (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, in your opinion. But law says other things. Herr Kriss (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Always look at target of the regulations. In the Polish law you can not read the shopping centers are not treated as parks or gardens or other public places, you can read only about the places "such as museums, galleries, and exhibition halls". Shopping center is not any of these. Julo (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, in your opinion. But law says other things. Herr Kriss (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Places mentioned in copyright act are a closed list. Also pay attention to "permenent" condition; this sculpture doesn't seem to be permanently attached there. A.J. (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- yep. Cos it's not. The owner (R. Czarnecki) from the beginning says that its gonna by moved to SkyTower, which is now being built. Therefore this sculpture should be considered as a piece of "furniture" or sth like that. Masur (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, when he will install this sculpture again (probably after next year) near Sky Tower, its photo will not hurt Dali's heirs rights any more, isn't it queer? But do what you want, this picture may wait a year or two to be restored after. I am patient. Julo (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- yep. Cos it's not. The owner (R. Czarnecki) from the beginning says that its gonna by moved to SkyTower, which is now being built. Therefore this sculpture should be considered as a piece of "furniture" or sth like that. Masur (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Restored after moving and reinstlation under open air. Julo (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
