Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vrané nad Vltavou, přehrada, schema.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.
This file is a copyright violation because this picture infringes copyright of ČEZ group, its work is the only theme, on this picture can not be applied a "Freedom of Panorama" - in CZ only things permanently placed outside can be reproduced without violationg copyright, which is not case of this sign. If you look at http://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/tiskt.sqw?O=4&CT=1111&CT1=0 (last change of the law), $33 Explanatory report: Phrase "permanently located" should be understood very strictly, thus the exception in law can be in principle applied only to architectural or sculptural works. Spock lone wolf (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, uhh no. Our FOP section for Czech Republic says "Pictures, drawings, paintings, movies, etc. displaying a work permanently located in any public place (incl. streets, places, parks etc.) may be distributed without the original work's author's consent." It does not make any specific call for 3D or 2D, except for the fact that it does not cover 3D reproductions. And 2D works can be "permanently located in a public place" too. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep This sign seems to be pretty permanent. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Really? It looks like the work can be easily removed and updated with proper how-know. --Beren (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- What would need updating? The hydroelectric plant has been there for a long time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? It is normal to periodically remove such information table and replace with new version (sometimes because of vandalism). Map of all water power plant owned by ČEZ can easily be out of date. --Beren (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- What would need updating? The hydroelectric plant has been there for a long time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Really? It looks like the work can be easily removed and updated with proper how-know. --Beren (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Only the text of the law is legally binding, not the Explanatory Report from the draft bill. The explanatory report wasn't discussed and wasn't approved by the parliament. The explanatory report isn't published in the Code of Law and isn't legaly binding. Only the judicature of the Supreme Court can have some authoritativeness in the interpretation at most. As we can suppose, nothing is absolutely perpetual at this world. This implies that "trvale umístěno" ("permanent placed") in the law cannot mean "absolutely perpetual". I take as "permanent placed" every work, which is placed ad infinitum, i. e. if isn't determined some definite deadline and if isn't the exposure clearly claimed as temporary. The intepretation in the Explanatory Report is absolutely contradictory toward the approved statutory text of the law and have no any warrant in it. The informatory board which is displayed at the photo have a nontemporary character clearly. The Czech law mustn't be confused with other texts. If the law says "dílo" ("a work"), it means "whatever work", not "an architectural or sculptural work". The law don't say that statues or buildings are placed more permanently than informatory boards or signs generally. The nonsensical deduction of some governemnt clerk haven't more legal force than the clear statutory text. --ŠJů (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Even the judicature of the Supreme Court would be quite of limited authoritativeness, as the Czech law system does not have binding precedents… Anyway, an interested fact is that the respective change is meant to harmonize the requirements of the EU directive 2001/29/EC (see Article 5, 3h: use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places). Since this is a directive, it does not have (or should not have…) a direct legal effect, but anyway, I would rather try not to interpret its implementation in the Czech law too broadly, anyway. --Mormegil (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The directive don't say, that the exception may include ONLY works of architecture or sculpture, but it cites this two types as examples. The directive limitation is "works made to be located permanently in public places". Thus, the decisive criterion from the EU directive is the purpose of the produce of such work. The EU directive enables every state, that its law can or can not use this exception and that its law can specify a scope of this right. The Czech law implemented it nearly to the full. It excepts nor texts neither images and other two-dimensional works. Btw, this board near Vrané Dam was made doubtless to be located permanently. It isn't some ocassional exhibition.
- I think, images of vehicles are very more problematic: hardly some vehicle was made to be located at one specific public place. Likewise street advertisements are located as temporary mostly and a concentration of them precludes de iure to take photos in cities etc. --ŠJů (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Even the judicature of the Supreme Court would be quite of limited authoritativeness, as the Czech law system does not have binding precedents… Anyway, an interested fact is that the respective change is meant to harmonize the requirements of the EU directive 2001/29/EC (see Article 5, 3h: use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places). Since this is a directive, it does not have (or should not have…) a direct legal effect, but anyway, I would rather try not to interpret its implementation in the Czech law too broadly, anyway. --Mormegil (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. "Permanently located" (in Czech "trvale umístěno") can mean "work is placed by the way that prevents easy removal" or only "character of work implies that removal is not probable". Legislators evidently thought about the first meaning and said that exception is more strict now, thus it is functional for architectual or sculptural works. Directive 2001/29/EC, article 5 Exceptions and limitation, paragraph 3, letter h (page L 167/17) does not allow much more. Layers Telec, Tůma created interpretation, that street art (for example graffiti) and paintings permanently incorporated into building facade are also acceptable. Both legislator and layers thought about the first meaning. Constructions based on the second meaning is therefore risky. --Beren (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason to consider a graffiti to be "more permanent" than a stable informatory board. Incidentally just graffiti is perceived as more temporary than a stable informatory board usually. Regarding sculptural works, we can remember, that statues or sculptures which are politically or ideologically or culturally condicioned will be removed very probably as soon as a regime or a mode change. Yes, the informatory board can be updated. Also every building will be rebuilded ("updated") or replaced sometimes. We should to discriminate between the interpretation of the approved statutory text and unfounded wishes which aren't enforced into the text of law. Even though it is a wish of some high clerk. The text of the Czech law give no reason to prefer statues or paintings against informatory boards and signs. The interpretation which is out of accord with the law cannot have more legal force than the text of law itself. --ŠJů (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- But graffiti is not only created to be on the a building, it is also joined with the facade of the building and cannot be removed from the building without destroying the work itself, it is special case of permanent location. Sculptural works are part of street architecture, threedimensional (§ 33 has builded in the thinking about dimension, supposed that the work is threedimensional) and if it is not only temporary sculptural exhibition, they are thought as permanently located. Informational tables are removable, and are usually updated in some period. The text of law itself is not so clear as you think, meaning of word "permanent" is debatable, when it is used to predict future. However, authors have protection against too wide interpretation of exceptions in § 29. --Beren (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The work which can be painted over is permanent, but the work which can be scrabed off is temporary? An improbable theory. Let's suppose that the legislator (i. e. the parliament, not the proposer) approved that which is written in the approved text of law. The § 2 clearly defined what is included into the term "autorské dílo" and what isn't. The text of § 33 is related to every type of author work which can be located at a public place. "Permanently located" don't mean "irremovable". Every work is removable: a building, a sculpture, a board, a painting. The purpose is decisive. The informatory board which contains informations of lonterm character an which is intended clearly for a publicity and ad infinitum can be hardly excepted from a scope of § 33. The reasonable protection of authors right is stated straightly in the § 33. All these specifications are fulfilled in this case. --ŠJů (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- "The work which can be painted over is permanent, but the work which can be scrabed off is temporary?" ... I did not say it. Important is if the work placed by way, takt is easily removable (removing can be done without damage of the work or other costs) or not. If it is placed by way, that allow easy removing, than the purpose is probably to remove it when needed and such work is not permanently located. My interpretation is exactly in conformity with the text of the law and interpretation of legislators. --Beren (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Practically any sculpture “permanently” placed on a street, in a park, etc. can be “easily removed” (modulo the weight and dimensions of the sculpture) by that definition. --Mormegil (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- But weight and dimension are crucial for costs. --Beren (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- So? File:Jan Zizka Vitkov Prague CZ 007.jpg is FOP-eligible, while File:Husitské práče.jpg is not? You must be kidding. --Mormegil (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- ? I did not say something like this. Both sculptures are FOP-eligible, of course. --Beren (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- So? File:Jan Zizka Vitkov Prague CZ 007.jpg is FOP-eligible, while File:Husitské práče.jpg is not? You must be kidding. --Mormegil (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- But weight and dimension are crucial for costs. --Beren (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Beren: The law says "permanently placed", not "irremovable" or "solidly built". Btw., the law-proposer isn't the lawgiver. --ŠJů (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Practically any sculpture “permanently” placed on a street, in a park, etc. can be “easily removed” (modulo the weight and dimensions of the sculpture) by that definition. --Mormegil (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- "The work which can be painted over is permanent, but the work which can be scrabed off is temporary?" ... I did not say it. Important is if the work placed by way, takt is easily removable (removing can be done without damage of the work or other costs) or not. If it is placed by way, that allow easy removing, than the purpose is probably to remove it when needed and such work is not permanently located. My interpretation is exactly in conformity with the text of the law and interpretation of legislators. --Beren (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The work which can be painted over is permanent, but the work which can be scrabed off is temporary? An improbable theory. Let's suppose that the legislator (i. e. the parliament, not the proposer) approved that which is written in the approved text of law. The § 2 clearly defined what is included into the term "autorské dílo" and what isn't. The text of § 33 is related to every type of author work which can be located at a public place. "Permanently located" don't mean "irremovable". Every work is removable: a building, a sculpture, a board, a painting. The purpose is decisive. The informatory board which contains informations of lonterm character an which is intended clearly for a publicity and ad infinitum can be hardly excepted from a scope of § 33. The reasonable protection of authors right is stated straightly in the § 33. All these specifications are fulfilled in this case. --ŠJů (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- But graffiti is not only created to be on the a building, it is also joined with the facade of the building and cannot be removed from the building without destroying the work itself, it is special case of permanent location. Sculptural works are part of street architecture, threedimensional (§ 33 has builded in the thinking about dimension, supposed that the work is threedimensional) and if it is not only temporary sculptural exhibition, they are thought as permanently located. Informational tables are removable, and are usually updated in some period. The text of law itself is not so clear as you think, meaning of word "permanent" is debatable, when it is used to predict future. However, authors have protection against too wide interpretation of exceptions in § 29. --Beren (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason to consider a graffiti to be "more permanent" than a stable informatory board. Incidentally just graffiti is perceived as more temporary than a stable informatory board usually. Regarding sculptural works, we can remember, that statues or sculptures which are politically or ideologically or culturally condicioned will be removed very probably as soon as a regime or a mode change. Yes, the informatory board can be updated. Also every building will be rebuilded ("updated") or replaced sometimes. We should to discriminate between the interpretation of the approved statutory text and unfounded wishes which aren't enforced into the text of law. Even though it is a wish of some high clerk. The text of the Czech law give no reason to prefer statues or paintings against informatory boards and signs. The interpretation which is out of accord with the law cannot have more legal force than the text of law itself. --ŠJů (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral - No doubt in cases of long located term sculptures, memorial plaques, buildings etc. Graffiti and paintings on buildings and walls are also pernamently located, but this case is debatable. --Dezidor (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think, this informatory board with technical description of the dam structure have very similar character and purpose as a memorial plaque or monument like this one. --ŠJů (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
