Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma

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:Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma

[edit]

The building was completed in 1975 by Massimo Castellazzi (1901–1977), Tullio Dell'Anese (1909–2001), and Annibale Vitellozzi (1902–1990). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2072.

A1Cafel (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep In 2017 we received an authorisation from the ministry to photograph this library for Wiki Loves Monuments: the ID of the contest is available at the end of the Wikidata item, and there is the information on the photographs. This authorisation was not renewed for next years, but it's still valid for the 2017 photos. So most images are ok (except File:Biblioteca nazionale centrale di Roma.jpg that was uploaded in 2009). Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marco Chemello (WMIT)  Question: is the exception for public projects still valid even in the 2022 version of the Italian copyright law? Italy recently made some amendments in the law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 As far as I know, the Italian copyright law amendments do not change the situation. Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy municipal administrations only retain the copyright of a work created on their behalf for 20 years. Then it lapses back to the original author. So the local municipality in this case didn't have the right to grant Wiki Loves Monuments to take pictures of the library in 2017 to begin with. Since the copyright had already gone back to the original architect (or I assume his estate since he was dead at that point). Although there's zero evidence that the whole clause about municipalities owning the copyright to works created on their behalf even extends to buildings anyway since it seems to only apply in cases of published, authored works. And buildings clearly aren't published. Nor do they have authors. Although I think that's less compelling then the idea that they couldn't have legally authorized Wiki Loved Monuments to take the images in the first place since they didn't own the copyright in 2017. And that's not even accounting for the situation in the United States, where I doubt a non-legally binding "agreement" between a local mayors office and a random group of Wikipedia users would even have any legal standing to begin with. I'm also sure the copyright status was renewed by the URAA, which would have happened years before these images were taken. So there's that to on top of everything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: Which municipality and mayor are you talking about? --Jaqen (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Whichever one gave Wiki Loves Monuments permissions to take the photographs. I assume that would be the City Council of Rome since the copyright is supposedly retained by the local municipality. Although you can switch that out for any other level of government and my comment would be valid regardless because the copyright still reverts to the original artist after 20 years no matter what governmental organization paid them to create the monument.
BTW, at least from what I can tell reading the "agreement" it only says people can photograph the outside of the facade of the building and publish said photographs on Wikimedia projects. It says nothing about the copyright status of the building itself or that said images can be used by anyone, for any purpose, outside of Wikimedia. Although it does stipulate that said images are licensed as CC-YBY-SA 4.0, but the copyright status of the images is clearly different from that of the building itself. Anyone can release a photograph they took under whatever license they want to, but that doesn't mean said image can't be deleted if it contains an image of an otherwise copyrighted work. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The permission says that the photo can be published with a CC-BY-SA license, which permit them to be used by anyone, for any purpose, etc. The permission was not granted by some passerby, but by the director of the Library, and it explicitly says that photos of the building can be uploaded: are you arguing that it is authorising photos of the Library only if the Library is not included in the photo? The copyright of the building itself is not really a problem since no one is trying to upload the building on Commons. --Jaqen (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright of the building itself is not really a problem since no one is trying to upload the building on Commons. Actually it is a problem because you can't upload images of buildings to Commons if the design of said building is copyrighted and the country doesn't have freedom of panorama laws. That's literally why such laws exiting in the first place, because you can't just take an image of a copyrighted building and do whatever you want with it without obtaining permission first from whomever owns the copyright. I suggest you read Commons:Freedom of panorama. To quote from that "In almost all countries, art, architecture, and other works are protected by copyright for a specified period. That means any photograph taken of such a work during the copyright period is a derivative work." It doesn't matter if it's just a photograph because they still considered that a derivative work of the original building. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that page well, thank you. I believe instead that you should read again the permission with which the director of the Library authorised the upload of (derivative) photos of the Library on Commons with a CC-BY-SA license. Jaqen (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your missing the point that anyone can take a picture of something and release it under a CC-BY-SA license but it doesn't matter if they don't own the copyright of the work they are taking a photograph of. For instance I could take a photograph of Mickey Mouse and upload it as CC-BY-SA right now and it still be deleted. The license is meaningless. In this case you said the director of the Library gave the permission, but a director of a library obviously doesn't own or control the copyright to said library building. Nor do they have the legal authority to allow people to freely take pictures of it. At the end of the day they are just a random person. A random person who runs a library sure, but so what? What actual legal authority do they have when it comes to the buildings copyright? I can call my local library, get their permission to photograph the building, and still eb sued by the original architect if I publish the image.
The fact that an employee of the library said it was OK isn't a valid excuse. Nor would it have any legal standing what-so-ever. At least not in the United States, and images have to be free of copyright both in the country of origin and the United States. Although I doubt it would have any legal basis in Italy either since employees of businesses clearly don't have the legal authority to give someone permission to create a derivative of an otherwise copyrighted work regardless of the country. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is not just any employee, but a manager. Normally when an executive takes office, he signs a whole series of proxies that give him the authority to do his job and therefore he may have full legal right to make that statement. ValterVB (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There is a permission (not an "agreement") signed by Andrea De Pasquale, director of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma, authorising WLM participants to publish photos of the exterior of the building on Commons with a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, as suggested by a memorandum by the Ministry of Culture. We can safely assume that the institution owns the copyright on its building and that it has the right to grant others permission to take and and publish photo of the building.  Delete the 2009 photo since it does not fall into the permission. --Jaqen (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep (except the 2009 photo) as per article 11 of the Italian Copyright Law, state entities hold the copyright on works made on their behalf. What was linked above seems a valid permission also as regards copyright.--Ferdi2005(talk) 19:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: WLM permission. I deleted File:Biblioteca nazionale centrale di Roma.jpg because it wasn't uploaded during WLM (or with the WLM template) but, if there is a permission, an undeletion request can be filled. Ruthven (msg) 09:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Biblioteca_Nazionale_Centrale_di_Roma&oldid=801137174"