Commons:Deletion requests/File:Straßenplakat gegen Oberbillwerder in Hamburg-Lohbrügge.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:Straßenplakat gegen Oberbillwerder in Hamburg-Lohbrügge.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:POSTER posters are copyrighted due to being non-permanent works. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FOP in Germany is applicable. 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.
Hinnerk11 (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a poster but a permanent sign. The new quarter of Oberbillwerder in Hamburg is still in planning stage, as it has been since 2016. Not a single ditch has been dug. It will be many more years before the quarter is built, if ever. And the local opposition (NIMBYism) has formed to fight it. These signs adorn many hedges, buildings etc. And they are here to stay.
The original poster is without a clue about local context. Ignore. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your claiming I'm the one who doesn't have a clue about local context, yet your the one who put the image in a category for political posters to begin with. Otherwise why did you put the image in Category:Political posters of Germany when you uploaded it if that's not what it is? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was no Category:Political signs of Germany. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd buy that if not for the bad faithed way you treated me over this, but at this point it really just seems like an excuse to keep the image from being deleted. The difference between a sign and a poster is superficial at best anyway. At least it is in this case. Otherwise you could argue all posters are signs because they use gestures to convey information or some nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I live in Hamburg, speak the language and have written the article de:Oberbillwerder long before this ignoramus made his way through this and that category, just because he feels like it. To destroy other people's work whilst being ignorant about local context and history is despicable. --Minderbinder (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, it's ridiculous to drag me through the dirt because of something that was your mistake. are you really that thinned skinned? It's one image that you added the category for Political posters of Germany to in the first place. All I have to go off of is the information other people provide when they upload the images and it seems like a poster based on the information you added to the file. It's ridiculous to drag me through the dirt because of something that was your mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since a picture of a poster as well as a sign is perfectly legal according to german law, it's easy to see who made the mistake.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does German law say that images of posters are perfectly legal? I know that's at least what the guidelines say and images of them are deleted as COPYVIO all the time. Nor do I think it warrants the condencending, insulting tone anyway. But regardless, there's nothing in the law or guidelines saying posters aren't copyrightable. Otherwise be my guest and I'd be happy to retract this. I'm not going to do that if the response is just a string of more insults though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned the legal source at the top of the page. Feel free to ask for more. I haven't insulted you, so refrain from any aggressive comments in my direction.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about insulting responses in general, not specifically anything you said. Regardless, I looked through the link you provided earlier and unless I'm missing something it doesn't seem to say what your claiming it does. So can you maybe cite the exact part of the law that says photographs of posters are legal in Germany? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sign was placed at the location in public space (by the roadside) with the intent that it should remain there until the construction of the new Stadtteil Oberbillwerder is either defeated in the courts or by a political decision, or until the project goes ahead. Either way, many years, an indefinite time period. ("bleibend" per § 59 UrHG, see discussion of permanent in FOP Germany.) The material of the sign does not matter, though it is laminated material, which can last a long time. So it is covered by FOP. I invite Adamant1 to either read up on German copyright law (you know, there are actual books in German on this), or to visit the location in Hamburg to check out whether the sign is still there. Send us a picture, please. --Minderbinder (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I invite Adamant1 to either read up on German copyright law or to visit the location in Hamburg How you do know I haven't? Regardless, you know as well as do that the standard here isn't that people don't have to be from the country, speak the language, or visit the location where the photograph was taken in order to have an opinion. So why not cut the xenophobic nonsense and just quote where the law says it's legal to take photographs of posters in Germany? It should be easy to do if that's what the law says. Certainly there'd be no need for me to visit there or read German language books. Like no one needs to do either one to know the copyright status of signatures in Germany for instance. They could just cite Urheberrechtsgesetz Paragraph 2(2) instead of making this about the other person's nationality or some other xenophobic nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ich antworte mal auf deutsch, da jemand der Bücher, wie den Heidelberger Kommentar, sinnerfassend lesen kann, offensichtlich einen fast muttersprachliches Verständnis der Sprache hat. Ich habe dir in meinem ersten Beitrag die relevante Stelle im einschlägigen juristischen Kommentar genannt. Du behauptest, dass dort nicht steht, was ich behaupte, erwähnst aber die Möglichkeit, dass du etwas übersehen hättest. Könntest du präzisieren, warum du eine gegenteilige Auffassung aus dieser Textstelle herausliest und wer mit juristischer Kompetenz deine teilt.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you specify why you read a contrary opinion from this passage and who with legal competence shares yours? No, because I asked you the question to begin with based on your claim that the law says it's legal to photograph posters in Germany. You can't just say the law says something and then put it on the other person to prove it doesn't say what your claiming. It's not my job to make your argument for you. Nor can I prove a negative anyway even if it was. Your the one saying the law says it's legal to photograph posters in Germany. So again, where does the law say that and can you cite a quote from the passage your getting the opinion from? Otherwise there isn't really anything else to discuss here. At least not on my end. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Der Benutzer hat die gewünschte Antwort bekommen. Wenn er sie nicht verstehen kann oder will, ist das sein Problem. Wie ich oben schrieb: Ignorieren. Das ist einer drei Schritte beim Umgang mit trollhaftem Verhalten. —Minderbinder (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe dich auf die exakte Stelle im maßgeblichen juristischen Standardwerk hingewiesen, die meine Argument stützt. Mehr kann ich nicht tun und es erscheint auch nutzlos, da du nicht in der Lage scheinst in rechtswissenschaftlicher Literatur nachzuschlagen oder sie verstehend zu lesen. --Hinnerk11 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read it and the law doesn't say posters are legal to photograph in Germany. That's why I asked you to qoute the specific part in the law where you think it says that. We obviously can't figure this whole thing out if you keep treating me the way you are about it though. All you have to do is cite the part of the law that you think says posters are legal to photograph in Germany. It's not that. The law clearly doesn't say it though, which is why your refusing to cite it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was hast du gelesen? Offensichtlich nicht den Kommentar, lediglich den Gesetztestext. So arbeiten jurisrtische Laien, dafür ist mir meine Zeit zu schade.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what I read? Why not just cite it since your the one claiming it says something that it clearly doesn't? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe zitiert, siehe oben. Lies es oder schlage die genannte Quelle selber nach. Deine Behauptung dort stehe nicht, was ich sage, basiert worauf? --Hinnerk11 (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't. You just said "see Dreyer in Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht, 4. Auflage 2018, § 59 Rn. 17." Then you asked me some nonsense about which legal experts I consulted about this or something. That's obviously not a quote from the law though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist das Zitat: It is permanent since the purpose is "permanent" for the lifetime of the poster. Steht direkt vor der Quelle, dem genannten Kommentar, der die aktuelle Rechtssprechung zusammenfasst und erläutert. --Hinnerk11 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you if the poster was permanent or not. I asked you to quote the part of the law where it says posters in Germany are legal to photograph since that's what your claiming. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nun ja, permanent in der Öffentlichkeit zu sein ist nun mal ein Qualifikator um die Panoramafreiheit anwenden zu können. Und diese Permenanz ist ausgiebig richterlich geklärt worden und in dem von mir genannten Kommentar zusammenfassend dargestellt. Hast du wirklich erwartet, dass in einem Paragrafen zur Schrankenregelung detailliert jedes einzelne menschenmöglich ershaffene Objekt aufgezählt wird, dass unter die Panoramafreiheit fallen könnte?--Hinnerk11 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No of course not which is why I didn't say "a picture of a poster as well as a sign is perfectly legal according to German law", you did. If your going to claim something is legal "according to German law" then the law should at least say something about it though. Your clearly backpeddling though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wenigstens bestätigst du jetzt, dass du keinen passenden Paragrafen erwartest, der dasWort Poster enthält. Also was soll das hier? Ich habe in meinem ersten Posting den Paragrafen genannt, ich habe den einschlägigen Gesetzeskommentar genannt und präzise die Randnotiz, die sich mit Postern beschäftigt. Kannst du nicht lesen oder willst du nicht lesen--Hinnerk11 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I asked you to quote the part of it that you think says signs are perfectly legal to photograph in Germany. Are you incapable of quoting something? I've told you multiple times now I read it and that's not what it says, which is why I want you to quote it because your clearly making it up. Otherwise you'd just do it instead of endlessly talking in circles or making this about me. Anyway, Minderbinder said the poster is supposed to be up until the building is built, which kind of means it's not permanent since there's a clear time it's going to be taken down. So there isn't really anything else to discuss here as far as I'm concerned. Good job derailing the discussion by making up things though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Du möchtest, dass ich dir §59 zitiere, obwohl du schreibst, ihn gelesen zu haben? Welchen Sinn soll das haben?--Hinnerk11 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: It appears that the conditions for "permanence" in German law have been met. —holly {chat} 23:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Straßenplakat_gegen_Oberbillwerder_in_Hamburg-Lohbrügge.jpg&oldid=846755686"