Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bosco Verticale

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.

These images depict a building in Milan (it:Bosco verticale) by architect it:Stefano Boeri who is still alive. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.

Stefan4 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 22 January 2013 (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.

There is no complete freedom of panorama for free uses of architecture or public art in Italy. IMO the building is creative enough to be eligible for copyright. The author, w:en:Stefano Boeri, is still alive unfortunately.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 1 May 2022 (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.

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Stefano Boeri, seems to still be alive. So these images are copyrighted until an undernimmed date.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You think that's just an image of the trees and the buildings have nothing to do with it? Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an image of the landscape, besides the trees there are other 2 skyscrapers clearly more visible than the copyrighted building. Friniate (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The building on the other side of the image is also copyrighted. If not also the building in the middle. So it's not like it matters since the image is a copyright violation either way. Or are you going to argue the only thing that matters are the dark, blurry trees in the foreground? Or maybe the photographer was just taking a photograph of the street lamp that's barely even part of it to begin with? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete All, including File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg,which is not a trivial size, therefore not de minimis COM:DM. In addition, the other two buildings may also be copyrighted and should be deleted per COM:PCP Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok to delete others, but File:Milano 11-2011 - panoramio.jpg, File:Garibaldi repubblica 01 (7211871980).jpg, File:Porta Nuova WIP.jpg it's a panoramic photo who don't have the boeri's building or other building to exclusive and central subject. The precautionary principle is fine but it's a bit exaggerated; which it is a freedom paranorma of a street and a night-evening a public park, which are in the background in the background and also partially covered by plants and in a corner: it may be a "sly artifice" of the photographer, but according to Italian jurisprudence they are potentially acceptable. Therefore these could be there, or in any case they should be explored in depth with another discussion-procedure, because if for some they are not consistent with the guidelines it is a "photofinish" issue. 5.90.136.54 12:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]