Commons:Deletion requests/File:U-Ritterstraße Kunst am Bau.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:U-Ritterstraße Kunst am Bau.jpg

[edit]

Freedom of panorama does not apply to interior shots in Germany. Creator was Geor Engst, how died in 2021. The file can be restored in 2091. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep There is no connection between FOP and the death of an architect/artist. Either FOP applies or not. It is not decided if FOP applies to metro/light rail/other stations, airports etc. This has to be discussed with experts, not in a DR. NNW 18:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no direct connection between freedom of panorama and the 70-year period. This statement is fundamentally wrong. If the freedom of panorama does not apply, which is the case here in my opinion, we have to orient ourselves to the 70-year period in order to restore the pictures as early as possible, namely when the architect has been dead for more than 70 years. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Ausweislich seiner Beiträge beherrscht der Löschantragsteller die englische Sprache nicht hinreichend, um einer komplexen Diskussion zu folgen oder dazu in verständlicher Weise beizutragen. Deshalb antworte ich auf Deutsch. Zudem ist es reichlich albern, wenn hier deutsche Muttersprachler Fragen des deutschen Urheberrechts untereinander auf Englisch diskutieren. Solche Fragen zum Urheberrecht (insbesondere Panoramafreiheit) im Zusammenhang mit Kunst im öffentlichen Raum in Hamburg wurden bereits mehrfach diskutiert, auch unter Teilnahme von Admins / Common-Admins:
  • März 2023: Skulpturen auf öffentlich begehbarem Gelände um staatliche Schule
  • März 2023: Skulpturen auf öffentlich begehbarem Gelände (verallgemeinert)
  • April 2023: Skulpturen auf öffentlich begehbarem Gelände um ein Krankenhaus

Vor allem in der zweiten Diskussion auf Urheberrechtsfragen wurde von User:Gnom herausgearbeitet, dass es darauf ankommt ob die entsprechenden Flächen für den öffentlichen Verkehr freigegeben sind. Das ist bei einer U-Bahnstation ohne Zweifel der Fall. Die Interpretation einer Wand einer U-Bahnstation als Innenraum eines Gebäudes ist abwegig. Was wäre das Gebäude, das gesamte Erdreich? Ein Tunnel samt der Haltepukte ist ein Verkehrsweg, im Fall eines Teils des Öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs auch ein öffentlicher Verkehrsweg.

Weiter führte die Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg in Beantwortung einer parlamentarischen Anfrage das besagte Kunstwerk 2018 in einer Liste Kunstwerke im öffentlichen Raum auf (Drucksache 21/13978, S. 32). Explizit heißt es darin, die zuständige Behörde hat eine umfangreiche Inventarisierung von 1.428 Kunstwerken im öffentlichen Raum in Hamburg abgeschlossen. Im Rahmen dieser Inventarisierung wurden nur "Kunstwerke im eigentlichen Sinne erfasst, soweit sie bekannt und zugänglich waren, keine Denkmäler, Brunnen, Gedenksteine, Bauschmuck oder Findling". Diese Kunstwerke sind mit Steuergeldern angeschafft worden und befinden sich im Besitz der Stadt Hamburg oder von öffentlichen Gesellschaften der Stadt (SAGA, HVV). Wenn die Eigentümerin amtlich festgestellt, dass es sich um öffentlich zugängliche Kunstwerke handelt, dann reicht mir das aus. Dem Antragsteller steht es frei, bei der Kulturbehörde um eine Änderung dieser Einschätzung nachzusuchen. Ist Lukas Beck ein Erbe von Georg Engst? Das würde bei einem solchen Vortrag sicher helfen.

TL;DR German law applies, freedom of panorama permits taking photographs of art works which are permanently located in a public place. A public transport like a subway is included in the definition of such public place. Furthermore, the artwork in question was bought in 1962 by the city of Hamburg, which still owns the piece. In a 2018 parliamentary report, the artwork was classified by the city of Hamburg as being "Kunst im öffentlichen Raum", art in a public place. --Minderbinder (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the topic is quite emotional, but I would ask you for a factual argument. You are arguing on a personal level and that doesn't get us any further. Coming back to the content level, the only relevant question is whether subway stations count as interiors or not. Whether subway stations are public is absolutely irrelevant. Unfortunately, public interiors in Germany are not covered by the freedom of panorama either. It may now be clear to you that subway stations are not indoors, but personal feeling is far from sufficient here. So we need a clear definition. If this is missing, the preventive principle applies. Lukas Beck (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was für ein Unsinn. Ich mache mir nicht die Mühe, auf solchen Blödsinn zu antworten, schon gar nicht in Halb-Englisch. Mir reicht die Einschätzung der Hamburger Kulturbehörde. --Minderbinder (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Minderbinder: Konkret zu U-Bahnhöfen die ausführliche Fußnote hier. Gnom (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete As has been repeated multiple times in multiple DRs now and is clearly stated in the guidelines German FOP laws do not cover building interiors, let alone train stations. So there's zero reason the image or artwork in it would be free of copyright. Minderbinder can say the assessment of the Hamburg cultural authorities is enough all he wants, but according to his own statements on L. Beck's talk page the Hamburg cultural authority doesn't own the copyright to the work in question. Nor at least from what I can tell are they a legal body or court that has any say what-so-ever when it comes to what is or isn't considered covered by the freedom of panorama laws in Germany.
In fact if I were to guess I'd air on the side of them completely ignoring the laws since they are purely concerned with providing access to culturally important works, which is isn't done by following things like copyright law. Although it's out of their purview anyway since they aren't lawyers and probably didn't consult with them at any point before they got involved in this. To the degree that they even did. Likely it wasn't that much beyond a simple wink and nod in Minderbinder's direction. Of course he, and other German users, are responsible for making sure what they upload follows the relevant guidelines and laws. Not the Cultural Authority of Hamburg. They can say whatever they want, but they are the ones who uploaded the images. Nor are they the ones making the claim that the images are free of copyright. Minderbinder and other German's are and so it's on them to justify why the images shouldn't be deleted. Which they clearly can't do, in this DR or any of the other ones related to it. Anyway, that's just my opinion. But I'd at least know about it then some cultural "authority" that's even active on Commons or responsible for the images being uploaded to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:U-Ritterstraße_Kunst_am_Bau.jpg&oldid=774420640"