Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg

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:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg

This has a Genman Freedom of panorama Issue, the image is taken from the Maintower building which as it has limited opening hours and charges for admission means it does not quilify as a location "dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible" therfore this image does not qualify for the FoP exception and the building shown will have copyright. LGA _talk^edits 06:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 Comment You seem to be suggesting that the building will have copyright if taken from the Main Tower, but will be ok FOP-wise if taken from the street. What about if one was in a helicopter and took a photo from the same angle? It's novel, I'll give you that ;) russavia (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly right, the German FoP uses the location the image was taken to determine if FoP applies, a picture taken of the building from a public street would be free. The use of a helicopter is listed at COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany as one of the reasons that disqualifies a picture from § 59 UrhG. LGA _talk^edits 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Do you have any proof the image was taken from the viewing terrace (which charges for admission) and not from the restaurant (which does not charge any admission fees)? While viewing terrace may not be considered publicly accessible, restaurant is definitely a place dedicated to public — NickK (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A restaurant would not be "dedicated to the public" under the the law, again a check of COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany shows that "station halls, subway stations or departure halls at airports that are publicly-accessible are nevertheless mostly not assumed to satisfy the “public” criterion due to their lack of dedication to the public." if a subway station does not qualify then a restaurant would not. LGA _talk^edits 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suppose that this is due to the fact that the abovementioned places are considered dedicated to trains and airplanes respectively, as only transport infrastructure is mentioned here. On the other hand, I can't see what restaurants can be dedicated to other then public, thus it would be good if you could show anything proving this — NickK (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Of all the sections in COM:FOP the German one is by far the best referenced including one case about parks that failed the "dedicated to the public" test as the publics use was limited, the same would apply to a restaurant it has a limited public use and undoubtedly has some form of admission control such as limited opening hours or the need for pre-booking or the like. Having said all that per COM:EVID, if you can show that German law treats restaurant as "dedicated to the public" and there is no form of admission control in the Maintower restaurant and this image was taken from inside that restaurant I will withdraw. LGA _talk^edits 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You probably know better that there is no way to prove whether this image was taken from inside the restaurant or from inside the terrace, as both are located at the same building at the same level. I am not aware of any German cases concerning FOP for images taken from restaurants (or similar cases, e.g. concerning bars or supermarkets), thus I would better ask for help someone more experienced in German FOP cases — NickK (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

All of which is moot when you look at the towers vistor information section and see that there are admission controls " i.e. you can only visit the Restaurant during it opening hours and only if you agree to and pass the security checks. LGA _talk^edits 10:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: what about if I was skydiving and I took photographs as I was floating down to the earth? Would that be covered by FOP in Germany do you think? russavia (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, it will depend on at what point something seeks to be an accessory, with reference to COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany and take for example a ladder, if someone used a ladder to climb a wall and the stood on the wall and took the picture, technically the leader was not in use at the moment the picture was taken, however the taking of that picture was only possible because of the ladders prior use. In the same way I would conclude that given the use of the helicopters is not allowed I don't see why the same would not hold for the aircraft used to get you into a position to start the skydive or even the parachute used to slow the decent. LGA _talk^edits 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: but what if the only reason one needed a ladder is because they were a height-challenged person (or whatever the PC word for midget is these days) and couldn't see over the wall without it. Wouldn't that be a case for the European Court of Human Rights? russavia (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Again I don't know, purely on the basis of the copyright law you would have to say that the use of an "accessory" for what ever reason disqualifies a picture from § 59 UrhG, but what ever the German equivalent of the Disability Discrimination Act might conceivably override that, but obviously totally hypothetical in this case, might be relevant if Oscar Pistorius starts taking pictures of German buildings and uploads them to commons. LGA _talk^edits 14:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, that's pretty clearly not covered by German FOP. Russavia is right that things get complicated at some point, but the case here is much clearer. For instance, it is even the predominant view in the literature that photographs made by Google's camera cars are no longer covered by FOP (Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, 4th ed., § 59 Rn. 4 m.w.N.; Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, 3rd ed., § 59 Rn. 16 m.w.N.) precisely because a photo taken from three meters above the ground is no longer showing a view from the street. There are a few scholars disagreeing with this assessment, but that just shows that this is about where it gets borderline. A view from the air (as Russavia suggests) is not covered by FOP (as the Federal High Court explicitely said in BGH, I ZR 192/00 = GRUR 2003, 1035 – Hundertwasserhaus: "[...] Likewise, as far as a building is concerned, the view from the air is not privileged [by FOP], not least because it includes parts of the building that cannot be seen from the way, street or place."). "The purpose of the exceptional provision [i.e. FOP] is to allow the general public to view what they can see with their own eyes from the street by way of a painting, a drawing, a photograph or a film." (BGH, I ZR 192/00 = GRUR 2003, 1035 – Hundertwasserhaus). Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

1. "limited opening hours": Eine zeitweilige, insbesondere nächtliche Schließung steht der Öffentlichkeit nicht entgegen. (quote from de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“
2. "charges for admission": Not mentioned in § 59 UrhG!

This picture is indeed covered by German FOP! a×p_de^Hello! 12:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not the very long-standing view of commons (see the very well referenced COM:FOP#Germany), I an not arguing with "Eine zeitweilige, insbesondere nächtliche Schließung steht der Öffentlichkeit nicht entgegen." for the viewing deck but it is the admission charge that voids any claim to being publicly accessible see Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011). LGA _talk^edits 22:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)