Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorio de Tenerife at night

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.

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain Spanish FOP law only allows for works that are "permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares." Whereas this auditorium clearly isn't situated in or on a public throughfare. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date since the artist, Santiago Calatrava, seems to still be alive.

Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going by Google Street View it's next to the square, but doesn't seem to be a part of it. There's also evidence that they block access to the public. For instance the left side of the property is fenced off along the road, access to the stairs leading to the back of the building is roped off, and there's a swing gate that people have to go through to access the underground parking lot. Plus people are only allowed in the building for special events. Although people can walk around the back, but that doesn't make it a "throughfare" because all you can do is walk around to the other side where there's a fence. And it's not really a public place if it's not open most of the time and they can arbitrarily deny members of the public access either to the building or property if they want to. Otherwise any business would be a "public throughfare" because people can walk through the parking lot. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me it looks different at Google Streetview. The entire opera house is in the centre of a public square where you can walk around there. And the opera house and the surrounding square appear to be owned by the public. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually off to the side of the square next to some offices that are along the water, not in the middle of it. The park/square Plaza Del Castillo Negro, which is what I'm assuming your talking about, is on the other side. Also as far as I can tell Spanish FoP has nothing to do with what entity owns the building. We'll have to agree to disagree about both though, but its pretty obvious from looking at the Street View images that access is restricted, its not in the middle of the park, and the there isn't any evidence that FoP in Spain has anything to do with ownership. Otherwise I'm fine changing my opinion if you provide a source saying so. But I'm kind of arguing about it in absence of actual proof for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain FOP in Spain doesn't seem to allow for commercial usage and at least a couple of users on the village pump were of the opinion that there should at least be a warning about it, if nothing else. So the template should stay on the category regardless of if these particular images of the auditarium are kept or not. Although I'm still under the opinion that they should be deleted due to the issues with commercial usage. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, either there is no FoP and we delete {{FoP-Spain}}, and we write a clear "not ok" in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Spain, and we therefore delete all the images of buildings and other various artworks from Spain that we have on Commons, or this sole deletion request as well as this sole warning are not specialy relevant. See also Category:Buildings in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, in the Canary Islands, in Spain, ect, ect... Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "the sole deletion request" related to FOP in Spain or how it even be relevant if it was, but as I've said its already been discussed several times and I don't feel like relitigating the whole thing yet again just because you disagree with people who supported a warning about it. Be my guest and start a conversation about on the Village Pump if you think it needs clarification though. With the DR specifically, I'm totally fine leaving it up to whomever decides to close it. I could personally care less either way outside of following what the guideline and people on the village have (or had) to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Mike Peel and consensus, this appears to be permanently located in a public place. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]