Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bucharest Opera House

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:Bucharest Opera House

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Romania: the building from 1953 is work by Octav Doicescu (d. 1981).

Eleassar (t/p) 11:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If that's deemed to be an FOP violation, then nothing I can do about it. I recommend, though, that someone go through these closely: a lot of mine are interiors and in several cases their main subject is the people, and I'm willing to guess that in some cases the architecture is de minimis. For example, it is hard to imagine there could be a problem with File:Opera Bucharest 25 A.jpg, and File:Opera Bucharest 10.jpg (a bit jittery, I'm afraid) is basically a theater curtain, which I doubt is copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For File:Opera Bucharest 10.jpg: if it is a creative work, it is copyrightable. For example, Art. 7:[1] "(g) works of three-dimensional art such as: works of sculpture, painting, drawing, engraving, lithography, monumental art, stage design, tapestry, ceramics, glass and metal shaping, and also works of art applied to products intended for practical use;"
For File:Opera Bucharest 25 A.jpg: could be de minimis.  I withdraw my nomination on this one. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • same old discussion - is the work the main subject? Are the advertising banners covering the subject of copyright? The banners cover the work of the architect, and so this can be considered an excerpt from the main work? A long an interminable discussion, about the wikipedia FOP, a FOP translated and interpreted by common people without any law support. The main point is that the delete or keep decision has no legal basis and in only an opinion based on a single article from a law. I know it is hard to understand but this not the way things work in romanian legislation. For exemple regarding the photography we can consider the following:
  • Romanian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (No. 8 of March 14, 1996) ((Capitolul X al Legii, intitulat "Operele de artă plastică, de arhitectură si fotografice", stipulează în Art. 83 alin. 2, un prim drept fundamental al autorului operei fotografice, anume ca nicio reproducere a creaţiei sale să nu poată fi pusă în vânzare fără a i se solicita acordul şi a i se prezenta forma finală a materialului în care va fi inclusă fotografia. Observăm că, din acest punct de vedere, protecţia vizează nu într-atât dreptul la nume al autorului, cât drepturile sale patrimoniale, reglementarea vizând strict reproducerea cu scop comercial.))
  • Codul Deontologic din 21.05.2012 al profesiei de arhitect
  • Hotărârea nr. 585/2002 a Oficiului Registrului Naţional al Informaţiilor Secrete de Stat, care în Art. 183 alin. 1

And so on... In conclusion ,this is not a vote, but a kind request the FOP for romania to be revised by a lawyer. Till then an answer is pending:if the FOP for Romania is like this. How anyone could explain images like this: http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2010/12/street_view_imagery_released_in_rom.html http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-bucharest-romanian-national-opera-house-image25452334

)

CristianChirita (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Opera2Bucuresti.JPG and File:OperaBucuresti.JPG As an author i decleare that the subject of the picture is an illustration of the law 185/2013 regarding public advertising in public spaces. The description of the photo was modified.
Română: Subiectul fotografie est modul de aplicare a legii publicitatii stradale. Legea 185/2013 privind amplasarea si autorizarea mijloacelor de publicitate.Aplicarea pe fatada Operei Naţionale Bucureşti a banerelor publicitare. Art. 15 1) Amplasarea mijloacelor de publicitate este interzisa in urmatoarele situatii: b) in spatii verzi cu caracter ornamental sau cu valoare deosebita; g) pe obiectele de arta monumentala si monumentele de for public; d) pe cladirile reprezentand sedii ale autoritatilor administratiei publice locale si centrale, precum si ale institutiilor publice, cu exceptia afisajelor care anunta activitatea ce se desfasoara in interiorul sediilor; Sunt permise, fara consimtamantul autorului si fara plata vreunei remuneratii, urmatoarele utilizari ale unei opere aduse anterior la cunostinta publica, cu conditia ca acestea sa fie conforme bunelor uzante, sa nu contravina exploatarii normale a operei si sa nu il prejudicieze pe autor sau pe titularii drepturilor de utilizare:a) reproducerea unei opere in cadrul procedurilor judiciare, parlamentare sau administrative ori pentru scopuri de siguranta publica;

CristianChirita (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which banners? The DR has been opened because the images show copyrighted architecture, not banners. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 advertising mesh on the building :for exemple:one on the left is RAZVAN MAZILIU si Invitatii sai. Second The same picture was nominated by you at 2 categories: Opera Romana snd George Enescu, Ion Jalea, Bucharest which demonstrate that neither one of the category was the main subject of the photography. My point is : that you are wrong in this particular case and that in general FOP for Romania is misunderstood by wikipedians. And that in general (This is not the case) applied only for some images (from my past experience usually as part of an edit war), but as you know, I'm a minority, so in the wikipedia spirit: anyone has the right to edit the images. Since the edit could also involve the deleting, I respect anyone's right to delete images. Still some of the images you nominate for deletion, are published on the wikicommons on the GNU License, a license who bound the user to publish or print the 17 pages of the GNU text, please explain in this particular case how can the image can be used in a commercial way ? (The GNU license it is tolerad by commons policy due to historical reason - because initially the commons was something else:) It is rhetoric question, i do not expect any response, neither I want to start an edit war, but is may point. I respect your opinion and your work,also I believe that You are well intent CristianChirita (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, all nominated photos (except one) violate architect's and/or room designer's copyright. Taivo (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Bucharest_Opera_House&oldid=825727783"