Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Vilnius

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.

Files in Category:Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Vilnius

[edit]

This monument was erected in 1984, and is still copyrighted. Photos of it are not allowed on Commons per COM:FOP Lithuania.

 Keep This image should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features Bernadine Monastery building behind the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz sculpture itself (monument does not appear in this image), and any work associated with it, should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features St. Anne's Church in Vilnius and the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz monument itself should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features the towers and mural of the facade of the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz monument itself should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features the tower of St. Anne's Church of Assisi in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz monument itself should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features St. Anne's Church in Vilnius and the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz monument itself should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features towers of St. Anne's Church in Vilnius and the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz monument itself should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features towers of St. Anne's Church in Vilnius and the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz monument itself should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features St. Anne's Church in Vilnius and the Church of St. Francis of Assisi in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz monument itself should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This image features the Orthodox Cathedral of the Dormition of the Theotokos in Vilnius and so should not be deleted [COM:L & De minimis]. Also the Adam Mickiewicz monument itself should be governed by allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place' [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This pictures is not about Statue of Adam Mickevicius. It is about the Berdhardiner church. There are impossible take a photo without the anyway very disturbing statue. See File:BernardMonastery.jpg too! This pictures should be acceptable as de minimis Texaner (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This photo is about the St. Anna Cathedral and the Berdhardiner church. There are impossible take a photo without the anyway very disturbing statue. This picture should be acceptable as de minimis --Regasterios (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This pictures is not about Statue of Adam Mickevicius. It is about the St. Anna Cathedral. There are impossible take a photo without the anyway very disturbing statue. See File:BernardMonastery.jpg too! This pictures should be acceptable as de minimis Texaner (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This photo is about the St. Anna Cathedral and the Berdhardiner church. There are impossible take a photo without the anyway very disturbing statue. This picture should be acceptable as de minimis --Regasterios (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This photo is about the St. Anna Cathedral and other buildings. There are impossible take a photo without the anyway very disturbing statue. This picture should be acceptable as de minimis --Regasterios (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last image is related to a different monument. Yarl 💭  13:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff G “Commercial use of reproductions of works of architecture or sculpture in public places is not allowed when ….” but to my knowledge there is no commercial use, or intended commercial use, associated with the images posted by Scotch Mist under CCA-4 and referenced above. Of course should any of the creators of the original works photographed in public spaces indicate (or have indicated) that they wish to have associated images removed from Wikimedia then their wishes should naturally be complied with, but in the meantime it would seem appropriate to leave decisions in these matters to ‘local adminstrators’ who may have direct contact with the creators as well as a more intimate understanding of whether such ‘public works’ should be accessible through Wikimedia and thereby extend appreciation of the talents of local artists and the diversity of ‘public art’ presented throughout Lithuania. Please consider removing the delete tags on these images – thank you …--SM1 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scotch Mist: Authorization for commercial use is required for the works underlying dws such as these photos, please see COM:L for details.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scotch Mist: Where is "allowable exception under Lithuanian copyright as the sculpture is 'made to be located permanently in public place'" which permits commercial use in Lithuanian law?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: This link COM:FOP Lithuania should take you to the following statement: "It shall be permitted to carry out the following acts without the authorisation of an author or any other owner of copyright and without a remuneration, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible: to reproduce and make available to the public works of architecture and sculptures, made to be located permanently in public places, except for the cases where they are displayed in exhibitions and museums". --SM1 (talk)
@Scotch Mist: You missed the main point there: " Not OK Commercial use of reproductions of works of architecture or sculpture in public places is not allowed when the work is the main subject and it is used commercially." We require works uploaded here to be allowed to be used commercially, so no (modern, in copyright) architectural works in Lithuania may be featured in works we host unless we have permission from the architects, sculptors, or both (in certain cases you mentioned above).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thank you for taking the time to provide more detailed explanation here and I apologize if I am now simply totally confused or my logical faculties are failing me but perhaps something has been ‘lost in translation’. While understanding the requirement that images uploaded to Wikimedia should be free to use commercially, even if authors\uploaders themselves have no intent to use those images commercially, if the interpretation of Lithuanian FOP that you have provided is correct, then the qualifying clause I referenced does not seem to make sense in this context – why state the permission exception “made to be located permanently in public places” if the interpretation applies to all reproductions of works of architecture and sculpture whether they were only created to remain in specific public places (apart from exhibitions and museums) or not? Appreciate your patience on this but as I plan to head back to Lithuania shortly I wish to be certain that I have a clear understanding of what is permissible with regard to taking photographs and uploading the images. Thanks again ... --SM1 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scotch Mist: That language was added by @Aymatth2 in this edit, and came from Law No. VIII-1185 of 1999, as amended up to Law No. XII-1183 of 2014, Article 28.1.1.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thank you again for your informative response. It appears that the apparent ‘contradiction’ has arisen with the introduction of the current wording that replaced the clause “Limited freedom of panorama in Lithuania is granted by article 28 ("Limitations to Copyright in Works of Architecture and Sculptures") of the Law Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights. This allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places (excluding works presented in museums and exhibitions), "but they cannot be used commercially in any form”. Therefore as Wikimedia Commons Licensing general conditions (including the commercial stipulation) apply here, along with permissible restrictions, only photographs\images of sculptures permanently located in public spaces in Lithuania where authorization for commercial use has been obtained explicitly from the sculptor may be published (unless seventy years have elapsed since the sculptor’s death). This however does not apply “if the artwork is not the primary content of the image” [COM:L]. --SM1 (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all picture of the statue. Pictures of the reliefs may remain. WIPO gives both English and Lithuanian versions of the current law here. Section 28.1 says you can take and publish pictures of works of architecture and sculptures "made to be located permanently in public places", which would be true of the church and the monument, but Section 28.2 qualifies that by saying reproductions are not allowed without the copyright holder's permission when the work is the main subject and the copy is for direct or indirect commercial advantage. That rules out these pictures: the monument is the main subject, and pictures uploaded to Commons must be usable for commercial purposes. There is no way that inclusion of the monument in the pictures could be considered "de minimis". A simple test is to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the monument were to be masked out. If not, inclusion of the monument is not "de minimis". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Vilnius with the monument cropped out

@Aymatth2: Am disappointed that a decision appears to have been made to delete all of the above photographs, even where clearly “the artwork is not the primary content of the image” [COM:L]. The term ‘primary content’ is generally used in a photograph to reference the main content as defined by relative area covered or by significant focus, or by a combination of both. The test suggested of the quality or usefulness of the photograph is not analogous to this clause although it is conceded that it could be considered analogous to assessing “De minimis”. That said would removal of the name ‘Adam Mickiewicz’ (simply used for a group of files uploaded together) from the filenames of Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 11, 12 and 13, not support removal of the deletion tags associated with those respective images, which action might also be reasonably applied to files: Berdhardiner church, Vilnius; Senamiestis, Vilnius; Lithuania - panoramio (181); St. Anna Cathedral; A. Mickevich monument – panoramio (title also to be edited); VILNIUS, AB. 047; VILNIUS, AB. 048; Vilnius. Šv.Onos bažnyčia - panoramio and Wileńskie kościoły oraz pomnik Adama Mickiewicza przy Maironio gatve - panoramio (title also to be edited)? Retaining half of these images would seem consistent with the reasonable application of Commons Licensing unless the intent is now to apply much stricter publishing conditions to all images containing Lithuanian public artwork, no matter how incidental that artwork may be to the primary content, including images that have existed on Wikimedia for more than a decade. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal --SM1 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image to the right would be acceptable, since the monument has been cropped out. The law is annoying, but is unambiguous and we have to comply with it. We cannot publish photos of copyrighted buildings or works or art permanently located in public places where these buildings or works are the main subject of the photo and the photo may be used for commercial purposes. All images on Commons must be free for commercial use. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the restriction only applies to reproductions of work that are protected by copyright. In this case, the statue was made by Gediminas Jokūbonis (1927–2006) and will be covered by copyright until 2076 under current laws. The reliefs by Henryk Kuna (1885–1945) have been out of copyright since 2016. In File:Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Vilnius2.JPG the buildings in the background are presumably out of copyright or could be considered de minimis (could be cropped out without seriously affecting the value of the image). Aymatth2 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: Thank you for your clarification – does this mean that you will now remove the deletion tags from File:Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Vilnius2.JPG, File:Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 03.jpg, and other works where the relief is the only ‘work’ subject to license debate, or is there further action that the authors of these images need to take to avoid inappropriate deletion? Thank you also for taking the time to provide the ‘cropped example’ you have instructively provided although in this instance the work/monument is clearly the ‘primary content’ of the photograph - not only does it take up about a third of the area and is at the centre of the image, it is also the largest object in the photo\image. These conditions do not apply to the images I have proposed be re-assessed (Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 11, 12 and 13, plus images from other contributors), where for example in ‘12’ the monument is barely visible in the foreground of the main subjects of the image being the churches of Sts Anne and Francis (which could not be photographed together in elevation without the monument). Also, you have referred to the sculptor’s ‘category’ (Gediminas Jokūbonis) on Wikimedia but only the work by Adam Mickiewicz is tagged for deletion where clearly in all four of these images (uploads dating back to 2006) his work is the primary content of the image. It would seem regrettable in the laudable cause of generally promoting public Lithuanian art that if now a more rigorous licensing policy (which will discourage future contributions) is now to be applied and that all evidence of the work of this artist on Wikimedia, and presumably the works of other Lithuanian artists, are now to be removed, including those where the work appearing in the image published is clearly not the ‘primary content’. --SM1 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break1

[edit]

It is up to the closing admin to decide which files to delete, and that is not me. I did not realize all the files in the Category:Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Vilnius had been tagged for deletion, when some of them do not even include the copyrighted statue. I just looked at the seven files from this category that were listed. My vote would be to delete all pictures in the category where the copyrighted statue is featured prominently, but keep the others. Technically, the public domain reliefs could be considered part of the overall monument, a derived work assembled by Gediminas Jokūbonis and still in copyright until 2076. I think we can get away with pictures of the reliefs alone, and with panoramas where the statue could be blacked out without causing any real problem. My list of "must go" would be:

This is going to be an ongoing problem though. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statue is not featured prominently and not added to the photo significantly in File:Berdhardiner church, Vilnius.jpg. It depicts the church. --Regasterios (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis does not mean "not the main subject of the picture". It means "trivial and inconsequential use". File:Berdhardiner church, Vilnius.jpg could easily be cropped to reveal a high-resolution image of the statue. Again, a basic test is "would the picture be o.k. if the copyrighted work was blacked out?" If not, the use is not inconsequential. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is problem that the photo has high resolution (anyway 1 206 × 790 is not too high)? You can crop a small copyrighted details from a photo with very high resolution. See File:Louvre at night centered.jpg. This picture is in the table as "OK Very likely" on the page of de minimis: "Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable." Same resolution, same scale. Although the statue is not part of the church but you can't take any photo about the churh from this view without the statue. --Regasterios (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to err on the side of caution. The copyright protected statue makes it hard to make commercial use of views of the church from this exact angle. The statue could of course be blurred out... Aymatth2 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, kept several as DM. P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Adam Mickiewicz Monument in Vilnius

[edit]

The monument was completed in 1984 by Gediminas Jokūbonis (1927–2006) and Vytautas Čekanauskas (1930–2010). There is no freedom of panorama in Lithuania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2081.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per the first section above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 19:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Adam_Mickiewicz_Monument_in_Vilnius&oldid=856086076"