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.
Comment FoP indoors: "byggnader får fritt avbildas" / "[b]uildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form".[1] That means indoors as well. If the work of art is a structural part of the building it is not quite clear whether it is free or not. Edaen (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Konstverket "Stenmosaik" finns rakt fram (bakom sopmaskinen) på en vertikal takbit. Mitt fotografi visar att "inne" och "ute" flyter ihop.
According to the 1919 art law (lag (1919:382) om rätt till verk av bildande konst), only building exteriors could be depicted (cf. COM:FOP#Germany, on which the 1919 law was based). The lawmakers decided to change this in 1961 so that also building interiors are covered. Inside buildings, you may only take photographs of buildings, but not of other artworks (see the pages to the right).
The question is whether the stuff by Ulf Lauthers constitutes a "building". In the United States case Leicester v. Warner Brothers, a court ruled that a sculpture was part of a building, but I don't know if this would hold in Sweden. Various files in Category:Lyhdynkantajat were deleted on the grounds that the Finnish building FOP doesn't cover artworks which are part of buildings. The Finnish pictures were later undeleted in 2013 when the sculptures became PD-old-70. Swedish and Finnish lawmakers have co-operated when writing the copyright laws, so the word "building" probably has the same meaning in both laws. I don't know if the Finnish deletions were correct, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Building was constructed 1935, this art was added 1964. Could it then be considered a part of the building? I think it should then be considered art and therefore would have to be on an outside wall to be FOP. /Hangsna (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verket är "offentlig konst" och finns i en delvis öppen gång för allmänheten (Gula gången) till tunnelbanan och bör behållas som all "offentlig konst" i Stockholms tunnelbana. Jag vill påpeka att verket är även "a part of the building" och kommer att rivas tillsammans med hela Slussen (om inte Stadsmuseet sågar ut det).--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There could be some merit to the argument that it is in an open place to wich the public has free access. The Inquiry did say "under open sky" but the examples leave a blurry demarcation line.
Såsom förutsättning för rätten att avbilda konstverket har uppställts, att detta är stadigvarande anbragt på eller vid allmän plats. Med allmän plats menas plats under bar himmel, som utan vidare är tillgänglig för allmänheten, exempelvis torg, gator och parker. Som allmän plats kan således icke anses det inre av byggnader, även om dessa äro tillgängliga för allmänheten. Konstverk i kyrkor, rådhus, museer o. dyl. få därför icke avbildas med stöd av förevarande bestämmelse. (SOU 1956:25 s. 264
What is permitted is to depict works of art under open sky such as town squares, streets and parks. What is not permitted is depictions of works in churches, court houses, museums. There is a wide area in between what is explicitly permitted in the most restrictive interpretation of the Inquiry and what is explicitly not such as a street or a square whith a partial superstructure. If a formerly open street is covered with a glass ceiling, does that make eventual works of art no longer covered by FoP? The passage in question here is not indoors in the sense of the examples given in the Inquiry. The question to which "open sky" was an answer was whether it was permitted to reproduce works of art in churches. In this case it is a street which happens to be covered by an other street. It seems reasonable to consider it as outdoors. Edaen (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Om "offentlig konst" i de delar av Stockholms tunnelbana som ligger under jord eller under tak inte längre får avbildas fritt får vi ett stort problem. Då måste nämligen tusentals bilder på commons raderas. Kan det verkligen vara lagens andemening? --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Här är några udda fall där jag undrar hur lagen ska tolkas:
Category:Årstatunneln: Dessa konstverk är inte under bar himmel. Däremot står konstverken invid en väg. Konstverk invid vägar verkar gå bra, medan konstverk som inte är under bar himmel inte verkar gå bra.
Category:Uppståndelsemonumentet: Här är det frågan om en byggnadsliknande konstruktion som dock delvis saknar väggar. Dessutom är det hål i taket precis ovanför skulpturen, så i praktiken är den "under bar himmel".
Birger Jarl ovan: Väggar saknas. Kan man hävda att taket och det som finns under taket är olika delar av samma verk? Jag skulle anta att man kan fotografera hela verket även om en del av ett verk finns under en annan del av samma verk. T.ex. torde det vara möjligt att fotografera benen på en man som står staty även om mannens kropp gör att benen i sig inte är under bar himmel. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Under the open sky" is quite informal and has to be interpreted in some way. It cannot be interpreted so as to exclude Birger jarl. I think that the central part is "utan vidare tillgänglig för allmänheten" or "accessible to the general public without any hindrance, for example squares, streets and parks." "Under the open sky" can mean anything from "not covered by a tree canopy" to any location that is not windproof. The work of art in question here is placed next to a, covered, public street. There are no gates and it is open to the wind. Edaen (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been given the impression that "under the open sky" is somewhat like Edaen says. If its under a roof (or something else covering it) but with no walls then I would also say its sort of "under the open sky" in the meaning it could be photographed with FOP. However, if the roof has walls and therefore is "a room" I have gotten the impression that it then makes it being indoor, and therefore not free. If its indoor in that way then it does not matter if its publicly accessible, its still indoor. /Hangsna (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is quite subjective. There is a wide margin between what is clearly permitted and what is clearly not. "Inomhus" (indoors) used to mean inside a man-made construction on or above ground. A "rum" (room) also had a specific definition according to the old penal code. Inside a mine was (or is) not indoors, but ther could (or can) be rooms inside a mine. Somewhere Wikimedia Sverige linked to various laws where the words "inomhus" and "utomhus" were used. Those are still analogies. My subjective interpretation of "outdoors" is wherever men were expected to wear their hats on their heads. Edaen (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) In this case, there is a roof and walls but no doors. I think that the situation is a bit unclear. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be a lot of court rulings about COM:FOP#Sweden, so there is little to refer to. The only case I am aware of related to FOP is an (as far as I have understood still ongoing) case where BUS sued the Swedish Wikimedia chapter because of differing interpretations on Internet use of depictions.[2][3] That's not of much help here. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FoP indoors: "byggnader får fritt avbildas" / "[b]uildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form".[1] That means indoors as well. If the work of art is a structural part of the building it is not quite clear whether it is free or not. Edaen (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep Verket är "offentlig konst" och finns i en delvis öppen gång för allmänheten (Gula gången) till tunnelbanan och bör behållas som all "offentlig konst" i Stockholms tunnelbana. Jag vill påpeka att verket är även "a part of the building" och kommer att rivas tillsammans med hela Slussen (om inte Stadsmuseet sågar ut det).--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
