Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Comeniuskapel, Naarden

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:Comeniuskapel, Naarden / Category:Interior of Comeniuskapel, Naarden

[edit]

The stained glass windows are from the interior of a chapel in Naarden, Netherlands. According to Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands images taken inside of churches are not covered by FOP law because they are not public places. Nor does FOP cover 2D artwork. So the standard rule of Life + 70 years applies to these stained glass windows. In this case that 70+ PMA would be 2040 at the earliest since the artist, Jaroslav Benda, died in 1970.

BTW, I nominated File:Interieur, detail van een van de RVS poort met beelden - Naarden - 20527969 - RCE.jpg and a few other images of the same statues for deletion because the windows make a good portion of the images. Although people could probably argue they would be de minimis in those specific cases, but I'll leave it up to others to determine if that's the case or not. I'm not sure who the artist of the status are either. Otherwise they might also qualify for deletion, but that's not for another time. Also, I'm aware some of these images were provided to Wikimedia Commons by the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed as part of an image release. Please read their disclaimer before trying to use that as keep reason. "The Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed, exclusively provides images that are either made by its own employees, or that are otherwise free of copyright." The key thing there being the images are copyright free. That doesn't mean specific objects featured in the images are copyright free though or that derivatives of them would be either. Adamant1 (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The images can be kept, as the are covered by the Dutch Copyright Act, par. 18. In the Netherlands Freedom of Panorama extends to interiors of churches, as earlier noted on Commons. In general: this paragraph in the Copyright Act of the Netherlands. There were several deletion requests in earlier years, all with the same result (as far as I know): images were kept. Vysotsky (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know where it was earlier mentioned that FOP explicitly extends to churches outside of the two deletions requests you cited. The last time I checked random DR comments don't override copyright rules pages. While I agree that Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands doesn't explicitly mention churches, there's zero reason it should have to list every single type of indoor place for us to air on the side of caution and delete the images. Like it would be ridiculous to say FOP extends to someone's bathroom in their private residence just because Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands doesn't explicitly mention that scenario. I think it's enough to just cite the guideline. Trying to argue that FOP would extend to someone's bathroom in their private residence just because it's not mentioned in the guideline would just be bad faithed. Even if you disregard that though FOP still doesn't extend to "photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models." Which these windows would qualify as. Heck, FOP also doesn't apply to non-permanent art and these windows are clearly non-permanent. So be my guest and discard the "interior of buildings" thing. There's still multiple other reasons they don't qualify for FOP. Although I still think it's a valid delete reason.
In the meantime the guideline clearly says "it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums." There's zero reason that if FOP doesn't apply to museums or operas that it would apply to the interior of churches. There's nothing uniquely special about them. Also, it's a little absurd to cite a couple of previous DRs where you were the only person who voted as some kind of larger community consensus. It's clear you think FOP extends to the interior of churches. That's fine. Don't act like it represents anything other then your own opinion though. That said, if you want to muster up an actual reason why church interiors would uniquely qualify for FOP compared to say operas or museums be my guest. Otherwise, these images should clearly be deleted as COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment In the previous deletion requests I gave my opinion, based on Dutch law and experience. Two different admins apparently agreed with that opinion. I have asked Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed (via e-mail) their opinion on the (general) matter of photographs in churches. RCE made more than 30,000 photographs inside Dutch churches and made these photos available via their website, so I guess they have some thoughts about this issue. Vysotsky (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I've done many DRs for images of stained glass windows in Germany though. From what I remember they all resulted in delete and the FOP laws between that country and the Netherlands are essentially the same. So which DRs should we take as the authoritative consensus that FOP doesn't cover the interior of churches? You'd probably say yours. I'd say neither. But regardless, that's why I don't find the "I'm right because this DR" one upmanship thing to be at all useful. Because the other side can usually play that game to and then it just turns into a needless back and forth about who's DRs are "correct" and who's aren't. Anyway, that's why I asked why you thought there would be a special exception for churches compared to other extremely similar places that aren't covered by FOP. At least then you'd actually have something of substance to discuss use as a counter point to my deletion rational. Since that's kind of what we are here to do. Discuss why the image might be copyrighted or not.
In the meantime it's fine that you emailed Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed. I don't think whatever they say will be authoritative or overrule the guidelines though. I've done a lot of these at this point, and emailing people is usually a dead end. At least in specific DRs. That said, If you want to start a discussion about this at the village pump or the main copyright page then I'm more then willing to defer to what other people say about it and re-tract this if it turns out I'm wrong. Just saying "these images should be kept because so and so random person from Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed has said they are fine" doesn't really cut it though. Who exactly are they and what makes them anymore of an expert then us or make their opinions hold more weight then ours? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my best knowledge, Germany is not the Netherlands, nor are their copyright acts identical. For these images I have looked at the applicable law and jurisdiction from the Netherlands. I have e-mailed the person at Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed who is most knowledgable on copyright and I will report their findings back here. I will also contact a professor in Intellectual Propterty Law at a Dutch university. Vysotsky (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Germany is not the Netherlands No, Really? And here I thought they were the same country. Sarcasm aside, when something having to do with copyright is either ambiguous or otherwise unclear we will often cite precedent from countries with similar laws. For instance with stamps. In this case both Germany and the Netherlands are common law countries and members of the European Union. So they are pretty similar legally. Sure, there's probably some nuances there, but not when it comes to things like this. The word "public" doesn't have a drastically different meaning the Netherlands then it does in Germany. Nor does what constitutes a public building or not. In fact, both countries base FOP on if the subject of the photograph is visible from public grounds or not. The inside of a church obviously isn't "public grounds." It's ridiculously bad faithed to act like it is or that the laws between the two countries aren't extremely similar. Their essentially the same in every regard that matters.
Either way though, it's been ten since you emailed the person. I assume you haven't heard back since you haven't reported anything. So for the sake of brevity and everyone's time my suggestion would be that the images should just be deleted and then you can do un-deletion requests for them if or when you hear back. I don't think this is the proper venue to debate if the word of employees from random organizations in emails is authoritative or not anyway. You really should have taken it up somewhere like the Village Pump before assume it would be a valid reason to keep the images. Especially if your going to try and use it to derail multiple DRs before you've even heard back from the person like you did Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jaroslav Benda, which was ridiculously bad faithed of you BTW. It would have been fine to cite the discussion, but saying the images should be kept based on an email that you haven't even received and a DR that hasn't been closed yet is extremely poor form. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment You said: Germany and the Netherlands "are pretty similar legally" re copyright. Indeed, but there are some clear differences. Glad you mention postage stamps, in my view one of the differences. Dutch stamps 1852-1952 are considered Public Domain, whereas the German copyright rules for stamps are far more complicated. I made the connection between the two deletion requests because they are related. Your suggestion to have the images speedily deleted seems a bit strange, as they have been in Commons for over 10 years, uploaded in the course of a cooperation project between Commons and one of the most important Dutch heritage foundations. Yesterday I received an e-mail from Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed. The contact person from RCE told me she had sent the request to the RCE juridical department, hadn't heard back yet, and would alert me as soon as she got an answer. I will report back here as soon as I receive any news. Vysotsky (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there's differences to. That's why I said "similar", not the same. But if it's a 1% difference and you have zero evidence that this is within the 1% then it's a distinction without a purpose because it's probably something they are the same one. That's why things like the precautionary principle exits BTW. We don't use caution when are 100% sure of the facts or outcome. We use it in cases like this one where something isn't clear so no one potentially sues the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not really sure what your referring to about speedy deletion either. This isn't a speedy deletion request, obviously. All I'm saying is that the images should be deleted if you don't hear back from the person you emailed within a reasonable amount of time. Since someone saying they emailed someone isn't and shouldn't be a valid excuse to force us to keep potentially copyrighted images in perpetuity.
Otherwise it's setting up a sort of a fait accompli thing were someone decides ahead of time that they don't want images related to a certain topic to be deleted for copyright reasons so they just say the images should be kept because they emailed someone, which we would then have zero choice to accept. Obviously that wouldn't be tenable process. But I did say "reasonable." I'm perfectly fine waiting a "reasonable" amount of time to see if you hear back, but it should be reasonable and to me you voting keep in other deletion requests based on an email you haven't received and that you don't know the contents of is unreasonable. It would have been reasonable to write a comment mentioning the email. That's not what you did though. You voted keep based on something that we don't even have, know the contents of, and that your acting like everyone should just accept without question as a reason to keep the images. As far as how long the images have been hosted on Commons, that's an obvious strawman that isn't worth wasting the time on. I think my argument here is pretty reasonable though. There's nothing wrong with deleting images with questionable copyright statues if someone hasn't delivered something they said they would after a certain amount of time has passed. Again, it's not like you can't just do an undeletion request if or when you hear back. The burden is on you to justify why the images should be kept in the meantime though and I haven't seen you do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: , you started this DR with the statement "According to Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands images taken inside of churches are not covered by FOP law because they are not public places"... but I wonder about the origin of this statement? Are you referring to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands? And if so, what particular phrase?

Now you seem to present it as a fact, of which I am not aware although I have looked into this kind of discussions here on Commons several times in the past years. You stated that you have done many DRs for images of stained glass windows in Germany though, and got your way. But this is unrelated to the initial quite bold statement about "Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands." I have been studying those Dutch rules for many years now (in theory and practice) and I have not came across such a rule. So am I missing something? -- Mdd (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to present it as a fact I don't think I have presented it as fact that the law specifically says anything about churches. Which is why I asked Vysotsky what he thought the difference between a church and other semi-public places like museums or operas that FOP aren't covered by. The burden isn't on me to show what isn't covered by FOP anyway. It's on the people who want the images to be kept to justify why they think FOP applies in this specific instance. That burden obviously isn't being met just by repeatedly playing devils advocate either.
Like I think I've said elsewhere, no one has to explicitly show in the law that people's bathrooms in their private residences aren't covered by FOP for us to assume that's the case. It's on the person who think they are to give a valid reason why FOP is valid in that specific instance. I'm super sick of repeating it at this point, but to quote from Commons:Deletion requests for like the fifteenth time "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." I'm clearly neither the uploader or someone arguing that the images should be kept. So it's on me to rationalize things. At least not beyond what I have in my original deletion request and subsequent comments. Be my guest and say why you think the interiors of churches are covered by FOP though. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you just don't participate in the discussion since your not adding anything to it by just playing devils advocate or using by strawmen to miss-represent my position. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, I read at least three false assumption you made. The first two in your first comment, and a third in your second comment you stated:
  1. According to Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands images taken inside of churches are not covered by FOP law because they are not public places.
  2. Nor does FOP cover 2D artwork.
  3. ... these windows are clearly non-permanent
In your second comment of 14:28, 22 February 2023, you already acknowledged the first two (being incorrect). And you brought up the third statement, presuming non-permanence. You apparently didn't check the current state 13 years later, and the background of the work itself. A current website states, see here, that In de periode 2007 tot 2010 zijn de glas-in-loodramen, de glazen panelen en het houtsnijwerk grondig gerestaureerd... (translated: In the period 2007 to 2010, the stained glass windows, the glass panels and the carvings were thoroughly restored). The pictures of the glass window are no pictures of an exhibition of the glass windows. They are the result of a three year period of restoration, and are permanent.
You seem to be on a fishing exhibition presuming that no matter what false arguments one keeps bringing up, the burden is on the uploader. To complicate things even further you start a mass-deletion request, with a different types of images with different types of copyright regulations:
  • Peope visiting the church with glass sculpture in the back
    Peope visiting the church with glass sculpture in the back
  • Construction detail with the painting in the back
    Construction detail with the painting in the back
  • Here a fragment of the glass sculpture is the main topic
    Here a fragment of the glass sculpture is the main topic
  • Picture of a sculpture group with painting in the back
    Picture of a sculpture group with painting in the back
  • Collage of diffent artworks inside the church
    Collage of diffent artworks inside the church
  • Group visiting the church interior, sculptures, constructions, windows, ceiling and the glass windows in the back
    Group visiting the church interior, sculptures, constructions, windows, ceiling and the glass windows in the back
  • Even more interior details
    Even more interior details
  • Picture focussing on the lights
    Picture focussing on the lights
These kind of regulations consist of copyright rules, but just as much of common law and common practice. And what about the copyrights holders of the artist of the work? Are they happy we are using his work as an motive for the suggestion that the RCE and the uploader might have violated copyright. They must be aware of the work shared on Wikipedia since 2013... If they would have a problem, then this would be different. -- Mdd (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really feel like debating the nuances of what makes something permanent or not since it's tangential to the fact that church interiors aren't covered by FOP anyway, but I will say that the document you cited doesn't say the windows are permanent. At least from what I can tell. Just that they were restored. There's clearly a difference between something being restored and being permanent. They aren't mutually exclusive either. Temporary works of art are restored all the time. I'm not going to waste my addressing the rest of what you said since it's obvious personal insults and strawmen. Someone starting a deletion request because they think an image is copyrighted isn't a "fishing expectation."
That said, in this case I think I've laid out the reasons why I think the images should be deleted pretty well and I've said multiple times I'm perfectly willing to wait for Vysotsky to hear back about the email. So I think I've been pretty reasonable about it. I definitely don't deserve to be personally attacked over the whole thing, but you clearly have have no better argument except to claim I'm being overly demanding or some nonsense. All I'm asking is for you to do the basic minimum required to provide evidence that the images should be kept. It's not my on that your apparently either unable or not willing to do that. I'm perfectly fine waiting for Vysotsky to hear back about the mail though. Just as long it's within a reasonable timeframe. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel this way. The phrase fishing expectation was meant in a more general sense that you are trying to get a better picture of the situation. The second part was meant more in general about how these discussion sometimes progress. -- Mdd (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity: There is some similarity with this mass nomination of works, where on the images kept the building was not the main subject of the image. Based on that common rules at least 6 of the 8 images could be kept at once. For the other two, the third and the eight image, probably FOP can justify their presents here. -- Mdd (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see what a DR for outdoor images of Indonesia has to do with this. Can you explain how exactly it's relevant to the discussion please? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase and re-assessment from scratch

[edit]

After some reconsideration I changed my mind about this particular situation: This deletion request seems to be wrongfully framed from the beginning, and should be rephrased. We are not dealing with a Chapel of a church, where the main question is if there is FOP in churches in the Netherlands. Instead:

  1. The 8 photographs are pictures of the interior of a Chapel, which is part of a museum: the Comenius Museum Naarden
  2. Those 8 photographs are part of a collection of (at least) 41 pictures of the interior of the chapel currently present at Wikimedia Commons
  3. Hereby 7 of the 8 photo's are part of a series of 19 pictures, see here in and around the Comenius Museum Naarden made by Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed for it's magazine the Tijdschrift Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed
  4. These images have been made in one series on 18-09-2009 and have been uploaded 27 jan 2013
  5. It is evident that the Comenius Museum Naarden has given permission to the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, which is an internal affair
  6. Based on their own internal copyright policy the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed has released the whole series of images under the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

These are the most important facts I can think of so far. The main question here is, do we want to trust and build on these two organizations. If so we should trust their copyright policies. In this particular case I think we can trust that these organizations have made the proper arrangements with the copyrightholders of the works in the interior. And if not we can trust, that they will make those proper arrangements. We have no need for additional permission. -- Mdd (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one part I left out so far. In this particular situation we are not dealing with the more or less standard setting of pictures of art works or other copyrighted material shared on Commons. Hereby there is often the situation that:
  • a person (acting on Wikipedia as (semi)anonymous user) made a picture or series of pictures of art works in a church/museum/public space with some art works involved,
  • The pictures are taken without the permission of the church/museum and or the artists.
  • The pictures are not published before
  • The church/museum and or artist is not informed, and as such are not yet aware of the situation
  • There is a significant chance that the artist (or its rightful copyright owners) will not be amused, that this kind of publication on Commons has taken place without his/their knowledge (especially if the FOP or de-minimis circumstances are questionable)
Most of the Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands on other territories (especially FOP and de-minimis) on Commons relate to this particular real-life societal setting, which I hereby called the standard setting.
In this particular situation we are dealing with an altenative setting:
  • an well known photographer or organization made a picture or series of pictures of art works in a church/museum/public space with some art works involved,
  • The pictures are taken with the permission of the church/museum, and or the artists.
  • The pictures are published before for a longer time
  • The church/museum and or artist are most likely informed direct or indirect, and as such are aware of the situation
  • There is a small chance that the artist (or its rightful copyright owners) will not be amused, that this kind of publication on Commons will take place without his knowledge
This alternative setting requires and fundamentally other approach. We cannot simply pretend this is a case of the normal standard setting.... -- Mdd (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More specific about the copyright situation of the artworks and interior design of the chapel

Althought I think it is not (yet) our primary concern, I did look further into the most likely copyright status of the interior and art works in the chapel. In order to get a clear picture we should start with the renovation in the 1930s, where there where at least five parties involved:

  1. The museum organization or predecessor, who commissioned the renovation of the chapel into a mausoleum
  2. The Czech architect, who made the interior design
  3. The Czech sculptor, who made the sculptures
  4. The Czech glass artist, who designed the stained glass sculpture
  5. Another Czech sculptor/designer, who designed the fencing

If no arrangements would have been made, the interior design, the sculptures, the glass sculptures and the fencing all separately are still under copyright. In this particular case the architect, artist and sculptors could have acted as one and created one artwork. In that case this art work would be under copyright until 70 years after the last creator died. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Now the story goes that the work was commissioned, and it is possible that initial arrangements have been made.

The publication of photographs under a CC licence in 2009 by the RCE and in 2013 also by Wikipedia added a new chapter to the copyright status of the works. The initial publication was made with approval of the museum, and with from the start or latter on with the (silent) approval of the owners of the copyright of the works of the architect, sculptors and designer.

Now whether or not there is a satisfying and enduring copyright arrangement here, I am not sure. This might be a thing the RCE legal department can confirm or not. I do think the regular FOP don't apply here, and that de-minimis regulation only applies for maybe one to four images of the 41 images present. Depending on what the RCE is going to feed back, we could have to delete about 35 to about 39 of the 41 images present until regular copyright expires. -- Mdd (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things.
1. To point 1 of your first comment, cool that the church is in a museum. Museums are still not covered by FOP in the Netherlands though. To cite Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands "It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums." So great, the church is in museum. It's distinction without a purpose though because either way the work is still not covered by freedom of panorama.
2. To your fifth point in the first comment, where exactly is it evident that the Comenius Museum Naarden has given permission to the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed and also where is the evidence that the Comenius Museum Naarden owns the copyright to the stained glass windows? It doesn't automatically follow that just because the windows are currently in the Comenius Museum Naarden that the Comenius Museum Naarden owns the copyright. Artists can put their works in whatever museums they want to. That doesn't mean the museum owns the copyright to their work.
3. To point six of your first comment, while your correct that the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed has released the whole series of images under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, as I think I've said already that has nothing to do with if the particular work in the image is copyrighted or not. Just because I take a picture of an otherwise copyrighted painting and release that picture under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license doesn't mean the artist can't sue people who the image for copyright infringement. Obviously, the license of a particular image is different from the license of whatever the image is of and it's completely ridiculous to act like that's not the case. In this instance, there's evidence that the stain glass windows are free of copyright. It's completely irrelevant to this that the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed released their images of the windows under a free license.
4. The last part of your comment about if we should trust the copyright policies of the two organizations is a non-sequitur because no one is questioning their copyright policies. Again, the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed can release the images under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. That doesn't mean that is in the images is free of copyright. The rest of what you've said is extreme speculation. So it's not even worth responding to. Except I'll say that speculation isn't valid and 100% this is a normal standard setting. The law makes it clear that museums aren't covered by FOP. What it doesn't do is make special exceptions for "non-normal settings" in museums (whatever that means). This is pretty simple. Either the stained glass windows are copyrighted making images of them also copyrighted, or they aren't. That's it. As I've said multiple times now I'm perfectly fine waiting until we hear back from the RCE if we ever do. It should be within a reasonable time frame though. This has been open almost a month and apparently we still haven't heard anything. I'm fine waiting a bit longer, but if we don't hear anything any time soon then I say we just assume the works are copyrighted and you can do an undeletion request if we ever hear from them. It would be ridiculous to continue hosting potentially copyrighted material for multiple months while we wait for an email. Especially considering there's zero evidence that the stained glass windows and/or images of them aren't copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment These images have been in Commons for more than 10 years. I have written to the jurists at the Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed and to the best professor on copyright in the Netherlands. I have not received any answer as yet. I am currently looking at all relevant jurisprudence. This deletion request is important and has potentially large consequences for Commons, so I am glad you are "fine waiting a bit longer". Vysotsky (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. Although I'd be interested to know how exactly this could have large consequences for Commons. We routinely delete images of otherwise copyrighted works that are tagged as cc-by-3.0 already anyway and the law in the Netherlands is pretty clear that interiors of museums aren't covered by FOP. So the only thing that deleting these images will do is continue how we were already doing things. The only that would be different is that we would be following the policy and law by deleting images that aren't covered by FOP, but that should have been happening already. To the degree that it would have consequences outside of this DR is on the people who decided to ignore longstanding guidelines and what the law says by uploading the images. That's on them though. Realistically we can't use the potential consequences as an excuse not to delete the images though. Otherwise it just creates a fait accompli situation where no copyrighted material can be deleted simply because someone uploaded it. Since every DR has potential consequences. That's literally how this works. Although I'd still like to know how exactly you think this could have large consequences for Commons since I don't think there will be any if the images are deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

[edit]

 Comment Thanks for your patience. I received no message from the Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed, but here are three other, hopely useful, observations:

  • Last week I got a phone call from Prof. D. Visser, Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Leiden University since 2003. I had asked him by e-mail if Article 18 of the Dutch Copyright Law applied to works of art, e.g. paintings, in churches in the Netherlands. His answer was threefold. He said one should ask oneself three questions to see if the Freedom of Panorama exception (Art. 18 AW) would be applicable. (1) "Is this a public place?" He said he didn't know the exact details of this case, and knew of no jurisprudence, but it seemed very likely that a church in the Netherlands would be regarded as a public place. (2) "Were the paintings (etc) destined to be in this public place?" (In other words: were the works of art part of a temporary exhibit, or a permanent part of the building, as Dutch law requires? (3) "Were the images of the works of art cropped?" (To address the clause as situated there (Dutch: zoals het zich aldaar bevindt) in the text of the Dutch law.)
    He told me his remarks could be quoted.
  • I checked some jurisprudence regarding Art. 18 Auteurswet. Cases are rare, and I found only 2 (old) cases regarding Art. 18 (Freedom of Panorama): one case regarding usage of a work of art in a municipal brochure and one case regarding usage of a work of art from a stadium in Amsterdam. Both cases (dating from 2006) were not quite similar to this case, but in both cases usage was permitted.
  • Regarding the question if the building in this case was a church or museum: I don't know about the situation in 2009, when the photographs were taken. Most important question in this matter is the question if the building was a public place at that time.
    • In short, as to the general question: it seems likely that -according to Dutch law- churches in the Netherlands are regarded as public places. As to this specific case, I gladly leave the decision to the opinion of a moderator. Vysotsky (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direct permission by Comenius Museum

[edit]

Early this afternoon I contacted the Comenius Museum and spoke with a boardmember of its foundation, who confirmed that people are free to photograph and distribute photographs of the interior of the Comenius Museum, its chapel and the art works. This permission was based on their authority, as far as I have understood. Now I have agreed to write them back to further explain this situation and ask for written conformation. -- Mdd (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's something? Although written premission would be great and I'd be interested to know how exactly it would work in practice. Like does the museum own the copyrights to everything they put on display or what? Otherwise it seems like someone who baught an original work of art uploading an image of it to Commons while ignorantly (through no fault of their own of course) saying they own copyright to it since they baught it from the artist, which isn't how these things work. So anyway, their written premission doesn't mean much if we don't know if the rights to the works were transfered to them in the first place, how exactly they were, and what the terms are if they hold them. It's possible the copyright was granted to them just for people taking photograps of the works in the museum but not for those photographs to then be used for any purpose by anyone. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the conversation the board member confirmed, what I already suspected, that they are closely working together with officials of some Dutch and Czech government and to the board member's memory, there has never been any copyright complain about those works being photographed or whatever. She did tell me, that in contrast to what the Wikipedia article states, that the Chapel was never transfered to Czechoslovakia but rented for a symbolic amount of 1 guilder per year. Now we know that the interior of the Chapel with the art works was commissioned by the Czechoslovak government in the 1930s. The Chapel has always been associated with the Comeniusmuseum, and since 1992 the museum moved to the current location next to the chapel.

Now it is clear that the Comeniusmuseum has been governing the copyright of the works, and several articles in Dutch copyright law could apply in this situation. Now because of the situation that never before any copyright complains occurred, I think, it has never been established what is the most solid ground for the current situation. At the moment therefor there is also no copyright concern here, so I am not sure what I should ask the foundation to confirm yet.

Also, in my opinion Adamant1 with those questions keeps bringing up even more false dilemma's (*) ignoring the obvious: there is no direct real copyright violation event here. There is a lack of Wikipedia regulation, how to deal with this situation. I think Wikipedia is creating it's own internal conflicts here. I have seen this happen before over the years resulting, in my opinion, in a kind of overruling external regular laissez faire copyright business and doing business promoting culture. I am not going to participate in this, so for now I will leave it. At the moment I see no need for written conformation, and therefor will hold back on the intention. -- Mdd (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 with those questions keeps bringing up even more false dilemma's (*) ignoring the obvious: there is no direct real copyright violation event here. Uh, OK. It's pretty established that legal experts agree FOP laws of the Netherlands don't allow for pictures taken inside of museums. To quote Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands for like the fifth time now, "It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums." I'm not setting up a false dilemma by citing it either. You are by pretending that this hasn't already been decided by multiple legal experts and then expecting everyone else to suspend that while you do this song and dance about what other people say. And after what a month now you and Vysotsky have absolutely nothing to show for the stalling except a couple of vague comments by people clearly don't know anything. I don't really care if there's a "real direct copyright violation here" either. That's not the standard. Reasonable doubt that the works being portrayed in the images are free of copyright is. There's never an actual copyright violation involved in any of this anyway because it's not a court of law and We aren't here to be lawyers who legit copyright claims. Acting like we are is just a good way to Gish Galloping and stale this for another month while you tiddle your thumbs more. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(*) To explain: I think it is naive to think a third party should have to answer any of those questions to us, or to any other external party. Every organization has it's own copyright policy, and we are not the copyright police to audit their policy. It is for us to determine whether or not we think the situation is natural or not. -- Mdd (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is even more delicate, the specific false dilemma here: That string of questions keep assuming that the copyright status has not been determined, while the common law and common practice does determined the situation. Ignoring this situation and bringing up trivial general unrelated obvious situations, distracts us from the real dilemmas here: Can we keep building on their permission? Is there any real reason to know better? Are we making a fair assessment here? What do we actually expect here? How can we smooth and simple resolve the situation here? In order to reach any solution, we have to establish some ground rules ourselves. For example any participant should accept the obvious, and not second guessing every single detail here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is naive to think a third party should have to answer any of those questions to us, or to any other external party. 100% they should have to answer what the copyright status of the works in the images is if there is a reasonable doubt that they can be hosted on Commons, and there clearly is. It's not our responsibility to take the word of every random institution that we obtain images at face value like they are some kind of holy, sacred all knowing and perfect body that can't make mistakes or whatever. It's not like they have said the images of free of copyright either. So what would we even taking their word on? Some vague none answer by a random professor? Or what else, the month of speculation about it from you and Vysotsky? Sure dude.
Otherwise, What actual solid information has either one of you obtained at this point? I don't see any. Cool the person from the museum told you that people are free to photograph and distribute photographs of the interior of the Comenius Museum. That says absolutely nothing about the copyright status of the stain glass windows or if there's any restrictions on how people can use images of them though. At the end of the day "the museum" isn't "the stained glass windows" and that's what we need information on. Not if someone can take a picture of a chair in the museum's cafeteria or whatever. So you have absolutely nothing. Whereas in the meantime legal experts and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands are both pretty clear that images taken inside of museums aren't covered by FOP. So why not just cut the stalling routine and do an undeletion request in the future if it ever turns out the images aren't copyrighted? -Adamant1 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Instead of asking for direct conformation, as I suggested yesterday, I mailed the Comenius Museum and asked if they could explain the rationale of their copyright-policy. I must admit that I have similar questions as Adamant1 raised, but on another level. I wonder, on what grounds do they permit people to photograph and freely share the works of the Comenius Chapel? For me there is no question whether the museum owes the copyright, because they do based on common law and common practice. But they may be behind in conformation or double checking this common practice. Or whatever. I will report back if I have any answer. -- Mdd (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question whether the museum owes the copyright, because they do based on common law and common practice. In no way is that common practice at all, anywhere. Even if it was though, where exactly is it established in the law that museums own the copyrights to the works that they put on display? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. All of these images can be kept, as they are covered in the basis by the Dutch Copyright Act, par. 2, article 7. The work of the artists depicted was made in the 1930s in commission for the Czechoslovakian government, who received the copyright. The local Comenius Society and later Comenius Museum have been acting on their behalf ever since, and have permitted photo's to be taken and distributed ever since.
Now I have received word from the Museum that they will look into this, but I doubt any outcome would change my mind here. Those images can be kept because on the one hand there is a straight forward legal release by the RCE. On the other hand individuals in the chapel have made pictures with implicit and/or explicit permission by the Museum to take pictures, and have rightfully released their images here. -- Mdd (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC) / 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your evidence that the windows were made in the 1930s in commission for the Czechoslovakian government, who received the copyright? Because I don't see any evidence of that being the case. Just a bunch of vapid speculation. Also, as I've already stated and you seem to be ignoring, just because a museum gives visitors permission to take pictures of works of art they are displaying doesn't mean the works of art are free of copyright or that the images can be used for any purpose. Otherwise there'd zero reason Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands and legal commentators say museums aren't covered by Netherlands' FOP laws. That obviously wouldn't be the case if there was some kind of de facto rule that everything displayed in a museum is free of copyright.
If you want a similar example, look into theme parks. They give visitors permission to take pictures of their rides all day long, but the designs of rides and particular characters they feature are still copyrighted. It's totally ridiculous to act like a theme park or museum giving people permission to take pictures inside of the establishment is at all equal to a particular work being free of copyright or not. They aren't at all comparable, legally or otherwise. You clearly have nothing else to argue at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The releases of these nominated photo's here on Commons are based on the releases by the RCE, see for example here, and to quote @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): :

If the CC license is from the website, we generally rely on the legal acumen of the state agency releasing the image, if they withdraw the license, so do we. --RAN (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC) (source)[reply]

In such a situation uploaders doesn't have to prove that the RCE releases are legal or whatever. We do have an obligation to assess if this is likely to be legal. Now I have looked into the history of the emerge of the Comenius Chapel and the events which made this happens from the 1920s to the 1930s. Also afterwards similar images where published in the newspaper in the 1930s, and on postcards in those days without additional copyright restrictions. The local government took pictures over the years, which are released in the regional documentation center under similar conditions as the RCE has done. And the museum in the last decade or so itself allows photo's to be taken. These conditions make me believe that the copyright on those art works might even been outdated. I don't see any inconsistencies here, and I think my vote is also consistent. -- Mdd (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure. I'm aware of what the releases by the RCE says in relation to the specific images on their website. That's not what my question was about though. I'm not asking what license these images are released under. Your the ones who are saying the windows were made in the 1930s in commission for the Czechoslovakian government, who received the copyright. So where's your evidence of that being the case or that the windows themselves are free of copyright in the meantime? It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I received a message from the museum, confirming the art works where created in commission of the Czechoslovak government. It is the policy of museum director and manager of the mausoleum, to allow photos and reproduction thereof, if and given this endorses one of our most important assignments and responsibilities as a foundation: namely the opening & accessibility of the grave of Comenius, and the further dissemination of Comenius' ideas.

Earlier I found conformation of the first part in older newspaper articles from those days and in contemporary documentation. The second part is a general permission to allow reproduction of the works similar to the permission all artists and photographers give when they share there works on Flickr or here on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. This data endorses the vote and argumentation I gave 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC) / 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC). -- Mdd (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ellywa

[edit]

(Copied from my talk page with Ellywa's permission)

Hi Adamant, I looked through Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Comeniuskapel, Naarden. I have no time to read it all at the moment. Among others, there is no evidence the Czech government owns the copyright (and even then... what is the successor of the older country) My general comments are as follows:

--Adamant1 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mdd

Thanks @Adamant1: for copy/pasting this comment here, and thanks @Ellywa: for taking an interest into this case. What I would like to know first is, in what kind of capacity this comment was made? Is it of a concerned user, who wants to give his/her assessment of the situation. Or is it as a moderator, intending to close this case soon? Something tells me it is the second, and I will presume this in my next response. In short, it seems like Ellywa is to chose in one direction. First a direct comment about her assessment:

1. Now first the statement there is no evidence the Czech government owns the copyright
I would specify, there is no direct evidence from the Czech government, yet, but there is direct evidence that the RCE has released these images, for example File:Interieur, een van de glazen panelen waarin het leven van Comenius is geëtst (ontwerp- Jaroslav Benda) - Naarden - 20527961 - RCE.jpg.
The first disturbing aspect of this comment therefor is, that the RCE permission is being overseen, denied, expelled, dismissed, or whatever in this assessment. First question is than is this even allowed for a Wikimedia Commons moderator to do so? If so this is a very disturbing development, that one or all of the 500.000 images present from this source can be dismissed, without even a simple consideration. What kind of Wild West situation would this create?
It would have a very disturbing impact that if we cannot trust the permission here, could we trust any of the other 0.5 a million permissions granted to us. It would also have a very disturbing impact that a Wikimedia Commons moderator has the authority here to dismiss legal permission without any saying. Again what a Wild West situation this is? Also the counter-side of dismissing such permission is, that it more or less suggests a whitewashing operation from the RCE. A motion of distrust towards the RCE, or whatever. Again what a Wild West situation and naive thing to do, is to think that in the long term such possible defamatory allegations towards outsiders can remain without consequences.
2. Next the whole saying there is no evidence the Czech government owns the copyright (and even then... what is the successor of the older country)...
One could argue here that there is also no evidence the Czech government doesn't owns the copyright. But there is a ton of indirect evidence, that it actually did. I could specify with all kinds of links. Also I could ask through the museum for some kind of official permission if this is required, etc.
3 Third, the saying The chapel is now part of a museum...
This is the fair assessment here, yet it is the question if that even matters. The situation should be taken into account of the time that the pictures where taken, and @Vysotsky: already stated he didn't know what the situation was about 15 years ago. The fair assessment here is that the 15 years ago, it was a museum also.
We should however take into account here, that it was not just a museum. It was a museum that allowed people and institutions to take pictures and share them with the world.
4 The second bullet-point with the statement If there would be FOP in the building...
This whole saying can be dismissed here, because there is no FOP. And if so, I seriously doubt the part that "isolated details should be deleted in any case..."
5' The statement The glass is de minimis on some images, and can be easily cropped from some others.
This is also not relevant, because permission is granted by the museum, and towards the RCE who released the images on their own.

Now I can be wrong here from start to finish, and that is why I have written it down here as specific as possible. What keeps troubling me the most is the unimaginable undesired precedent ruling out these permissions by the museum and the RCE would created. If we cannot build on their permission here, who can we trust. The foundation of cooperation seem to fades away here to build on the permission of other organizations and people by name give us. Maybe I am to close, and I am not seeing straight... so I will distance myself here as will for now. Or maybe this one thing: Again this is mind blowing, and for one reason Ellywa has that effect on me. -- Mdd (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

To end this long discussion I would like to close this deletion request as keep myself, a non-admin closure on personal title. This is also a way for Wikimedia Commons to reduce the liability in this matter. -- Mdd (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "liability" your referring to, but how about not. The only reason it turned into long discussion is because you went off on multiple long-winded screeds that if I'm being frank clearly didn't add anything to the discussion. You can't just rant about a DR for multiple months and then close it yourself because the ranting didn't end in the outcome you wanted. Sorry. Especially since it's pretty clear from Ellywa's comment and the ANU discussion most everyone disagrees with you that institutions should get a special pass from following copyright rules. Although I think it would be inappropriate for a keep voter to close a DR as keep regardless of the details anyway. Whatever the outcome, this needs to be looked over and closed by an administrator. To the degree that it hasn't been yet is 100% on you and Vysotsky. I'm sure someone will get around to it eventually though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, proposal withdrawn. Still it is my opinion, that this deletion request is an anomaly from the start. It ignores the common practice, as explained elsewhere recently:

If the CC license is from the website, we generally rely on the legal acumen of the state agency releasing the image, if they withdraw the license, so do we. --RAN (Overleg) 05:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Earlier on I made a significant effort to look into the history of the photoshoot, location, organization and its history, as well as into the own Wikimedia procedure. I found no irregularities, which should justify to ignore common practice here. We should follow our own common practice and keep these images online as they are. I will rest my case now. -- Mdd (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the other DR, the common practice assumes what is being depicted in the image is PD, which isn't the case here. So it has zero relevence and you've already been told as much by multiple people now. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per precedent in Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.jpg. Public place so covered by FOP. Vysotsky also has a good point that it could have been a chapel in 2009. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Comeniuskapel,_Naarden&oldid=791313364"