Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waterneverstorf, Park.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:Waterneverstorf, Park.JPG

[edit]

Bild von Privatgrundstück aufgenommen, keine Panoramafreiheit / no Freedom of panorama PodracerHH (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment See FOP Germany (case law: Sanssouci Park) / It is not a question of copyright but a question of proprietary rights. According to current jurisdiction, in Germany cease and desist action can be taken against persons who produce and/or publish fotos on private properties without explicite permission. The uploader requested deletion because of concerns regarding legal problems. Usually such affected images are deleted upon request from right holders (property owners). --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a non-copyright restriction. Usually, such restrictions are ignored, with COM:IDENT being one exception. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally wrong, that we ignore any non-copyvio reasons. Finally it is about to protect Wikimedia, uploaders and reusers against legal action of any kind. There are various potential legal aspects, why a media file is not allowed to be distributed. Copyright is just one aspect among others. See also for example Deutsche Bahn claims proprietary rights. According to the situation in Germany the distribution of this image is definite against the law, so if the user fears problems because of this, the user should be protected, I think. --Alexrk2 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's related to this discussion (in German). --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weird German laws. In my country, freedom of speech laws ensure that you can take photos of anything, and the only lawsuits seem to concern hidden cameras at a toilet or in a shower (and the photographers usually tend to win in court). --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the three pictures listed above: As the photographer stated in the German language discussion, he was a lodger in one of the apartments in the building when he took the pictures. Even if we accept the recent and most restricting judicature by German courts on the issue as valid for all pictures potentially covered by it, he was living in the building legitimately, so the issue must be considered from this point of view. So far the German courts only decided cases where visitors took pictures. rgds --h-stt !? 14:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one image is listed in this deletion request. I suggest that you also a statement to the other deletion requests so that your arguments won't be overlooked there. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freedom of speech would cover things where you want to make a specific expression about some grievance, political or social problem. In such case there would be a weighting of proprietary rights and the freedom of press, speech and art. In the case of BVG (Berlin Transport Company) versus a documentary film about graffiti, the appeal court decided pro freedom of speech and against the BVG's proprietary rights.
  • Regarding the argumenent from H-stt: I don't think, this will be capable. It is reasonable to assume that the renter of one thing doesn't have the same exploitation rights as the owner holds. For example in the mentioned BVG case, the court also said: "Gemäß § 903 BGB bleibt dem Grundstückseigentümer die Entscheidung darüber vorbehalten, ob und in welchem Umfang er den Zugang zu seinem Grundstück eröffnet. Dies kann vollständig oder eingeschränkt geschehen. Hier gestattete die Klägerin den Zutritt zu ihren Anlagen unstreitig nur zur Inanspruchnahme der von ihr angebotenen Transportleistungen." ..means: the owner of the property can grant restricted rights to use its property (for example to travel by the U-Bahn or live in a hotel room), but that does not mean, that the grantee has all the rights to do with the property what he wants (for example to operate a hairdresser's shop inside the hotel room or hang out a CocaCola advertisement out of the hotels window). --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question How is this compared to {{Soprintendenza}} and {{SpomenikSVN}}? We accept images with those templates. In those cases, I think that the idea was that the restriction only applies in the country where the building is located and that you can freely use the images everywhere else in the world. Isn't this also the case here? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owner of the property and taker of the pictures want them to be deleted. The pictures are not from high quality and are not really needed to illustrate an article. So, why ship around law and rights if we could take the easy way and simply delete them? PodracerHH (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the uploader risks problems by keeping the image, it may be better to delete it. However, this restriction sounds like a German version of {{Soprintendenza}} and {{SpomenikSVN}}, so in general I think that we should treat all three situations (Germany, Italy and Slovenia) in the same way. That is, we should either decide that all three are "free" or that all three are "unfree". This discussion needs to be held at a more visible place, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful for your contribution, but me - creator of the pictures - still would ask for a quick deletion of all three pictures, because law is not clear. Thank you! PodracerHH (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan4: Yes, it would be good, if we could at least reduce the risk of legal problems in that specific German problem. Unfortunaly the fact is, that according to current case law, we have this problem, that images taken on private properties are all threaten by cease and desist action. Whether we like it or not. On the other hand, we can't let it happen, that thousands of images of train stations, gardens, zoos, castles etc. are deleted from Wikipedia, because usually such images are all taken on private ground. So at the moment IMO we actually do not follow the Precautionary principle policy and only act on behalf of concrete deletion request from the property owners.
According to the usage restriction templates: I don't think, that a usage restrictions, which prohibits the usage within the source country is useful. We explicitly wan't to use those images on de-Wikipedia; but various court proceedings in Germany against Wikimedia showed, that - as long as Wikipedia is targeting a German audience - they have to obey German law (see Loriot stamp case).
Maybe this topic should be submitted to a larger scope. I don't know, whether this DR is the right place for it. IMO the best chance to reduce the legal risks would be to express a potential restriction according to commercial usage and that the image had been uplouded for educational purposes. Presumably such restriction would affect the no-NC policy somehow, but IMO it is the best chance to protect them against legal actions, because proprietary rights are actually about exploitation of one thing. --Alexrk2 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: deleted on uploaders request due to unclear legal question Neozoon (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Waterneverstorf,_Park.JPG&oldid=95935271"