Commons:Deletion requests/File:Serramento scarpa.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.
Painting seems to be a work from first half of 20th century, thereby likely still copyrighted. No FOP exemption in Italy. Thereby a copyvio. De minimis? Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is quite clearly a photograph of a lecture hall rather then the painting which just happens to be on its wall. GiacomoReturned (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a picture of the room "Aula Baratto" located in our University Ca' Foscari of Venice on the second floor. The picture was made by us, the Public Relations Service of Ca' Foscari.--Gloyra (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fine, but taking a photo of a copyrighted work of art is making a derivative that requires permission. Who is the painter of the painting on the wall? What are his/her life dates? --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a photograph of a copyrighted work, the "work" just happens to be there - it is sideways-on, at an angle and not discernable - nomination for deletion on these grounds is ridiculous. You might just as well say that the man who made the new glass in the windows has copyright, that is just as a much a work of wonder and art. GiacomoReturned (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Plain "glass" is not copyrighted, paintings are. And still no answer to the question, who is the painter. --Túrelio (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a photograph of a copyrighted work, the "work" just happens to be there - it is sideways-on, at an angle and not discernable - nomination for deletion on these grounds is ridiculous. You might just as well say that the man who made the new glass in the windows has copyright, that is just as a much a work of wonder and art. GiacomoReturned (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Italy has no freedom of panorama, so we needn't even look in that direction. The painting is clearly incidental to the photo. It is shown in its entirety (which is not an accident but seems to be a result of intentional composition of the photograph), but it is distorted by perspective, it is grainy, and it is not well lit. So it's bit of a borderline case of incidental use, and would still be OK as such under most jurisdictions. Unfortunately not in Italy. In Italy when the European Union's w:Copyright Directive was implemented, the exceptions for incidental use were removed. Unless this was done on the theory that existing Italian precedents based on earlier copyright law which also lacked such exceptions made it redundant, this would seem to imply that even clear cases of incidental use of a copyrighted work make a photograph a derived work.
See section "Exceptions and limitations" here, and this and this for more detailed information. Hans Adler (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for this input. Your "incidental use" likely is equivalent to what is discussed in Commons:De minimis. --Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. De minimis etc etc. As above. Kittybrewster (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Assuming that de minimis applies, since the photograph appears to include the fresco as an incidental element of its composition. Masking out the fresco would not significantly alter the impression of the Great Hall that the photograph imparts. --RexxS (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Painting is de minimis. Yann (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
