Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bauakademie (Berlin)

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:Bauakademie (Berlin)

In Germany, freedom of panorama is only valid for works permanently installed in one place.

Lukas Beck (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with regard to my picture "Bauakademie 1466.JPG". I have added PD-old as license for the reproductions. Alle reproductions are public domain. Therefore Keep. Pictures like this are important documents to the archtectural newer history of Berlin.--Kresspahl (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „bleibend“ this was probably "permanently" installed in one place. It was installed 2004 and remained many years. --2003:E4:5F23:7400:42B0:76FF:FE7B:15B2 09:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just looked up the section of FOP... in my (German) understanding, the shroud over the building was as permanently used as it is the nature of such a shroud. Also, the shroud showed a replica of a public domain appearance of the building. Ziko van Dijk (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In its verdict on the publication of photos of the "Wrapped Reichstag", the Bundesgerichtshof ruled in 2002 that the limitation of freedom of panorama in Germany in relation to non-permanent works of art in the public sphere "mainly relates to fixed-term exhibitions and similar presentations" ("geht es [...] vor allem um zeitlich befristete Ausstellungen und Präsentationen"). The Wrapped Reichstag had such a time limit (two weeks), therefore it was not legitimate to publish photos of that piece of art without a license. In comparison, the "Imitated Bauakademie" had no such time limit, at least not that I'm aware of. As someone pointed out above, this wrapping was in place for many years. In my reading of the Bundesgerichtshof ruling, requesting the deletion of photos of the "Imitated Bauakdemie" is absurd. Jörg Zägel (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also to consider: The photos I created (those with "Beuth, Schinkel, Thaer" in the title) are not even focused on the Bauakademie but on the statues in the foreground. The Imitated Bauakademie is merely "background noise" ("Beiwerk"). A request for deleting them is the attempt to enforce an extremely expansive reading of the relevant limitation of freedom of panorama in Germany, one that is, as far as I am aware, unsupported by the courts in our country. Jörg Zägel (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a packaged object, but a document of great historical importance, fixing the process and one of the stages of recreating the most important architectural monument --Capitolium4025 (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. There are two main arguments for keeping these images: First, if we think that the wrapping depicting a historical appearance of this building is copyrightable at all, we can assume a "permanent" installation for the duration of the wrapping's existence; it was not a fixed-term installation such as Christo's Wrapped Reichstag. Second, if the wrapping is just depicting the original, public domain design of the building by Schinkel, it seems highly likely that it should be considered a public domain reproduction anyway, not an original, copyrighted work of art. The posters also don't seem to contain any copyrightable elements (an old, public domain portrait of Schinkel, and simple text). So, as I see it, even if the installation wouldn't be considered "permanent", there would be nothing copyrighted in it. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bauakademie (Berlin)

Files in Category:Bauakademie (Berlin)

Navigation menu

Search