Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg

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:European Parliament, Strasbourg

[edit]

This is a modern building in France. The architect hasn't been dead for 70 years yet.

Stefan4 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't think that common “pieces”, e.g. File:Strassburg Europaparlament Fassade.jpg, is eligible for copyright. --Leyo 18:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:TOO#France. The façade seems more artistic than a nail clipper. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything artistic in this photograph. It looks just like functional elements. --Leyo 11:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more artistic and less functional than a nail clipper. Also, COM:UA is specifically about US law and doesn't hold in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this nailclipper is more artistic. But I will stop here. --Leyo 14:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit annoying that we only have access to the court decision and not to the court reasoning in those French TOO cases. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: There is no FOP in France FASTILY 07:20, 16 June 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.

Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg

[edit]

There is no FOP in France, so unfortunately these files will need to be deleted.

russavia (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was soll ich denn nun noch weiter tun, als die Genehmigung ans OTRS zu schicken? --Ralf Roleček 07:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Warum steht das OTRS-Ticket nicht bei den Infos unter den Bildern? Beim Festivalsommer haben wir das gleich mit in die Vorlage gepackt. -- Smial (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe ans OTRS geschrieben und gebeten, daß sie Template:Wikipedians in European Parliament 2014/Gebäude mit Ticketnummer versehen. --Ralf Roleček 11:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dann weiß ich auch nicht, was man als Wikiknipser noch machen soll. Hier sollen Bilder mit Aufnahmegenehmigung gelöscht werden, nebenan werden Bilder gegen den Willen des Knipsers behalten. Nuja, ich gehe mal vor die Tür, eine rauchen. -- Smial (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In for instance File:Flaggen.jpg it is the flags that is the subject. // 62.190.112.2
The photo of the flags have clearly been taken to include the building in the background -- it is possible, I believe, to have a photo of the flags to be taken without the building being visible. russavia (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No istnt it. such a photo of the flags to be taken without the building being visible is only possible from inside of restricted area. But we have Permission for all of our photos! --Ralf Roleček 11:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some files were previously discussed in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4297.jpg and kept as de-minimis. Esby (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although this might be stating the obvious, WikiCommons is not in France, and as such local considerations should not matter. Also, aiui, these images were taken by permission of the Parliament and are part of the relevant project. To remove them therefore would be more than a little self-defeating! --AlisonW (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Du behauptest also, Frau van Kampen vergibt seit 15 Jahren illegal Film- und Fotolizenzen? --Ralf Roleček 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of making statements about whether others are acting legally or not. Provide a link to an act of Parliament which proves that copyright cannot apply, or provide a verifiable release from the copyright holder, rather than statements giving permission to take photographs during the event which are not copyright releases and are not from the copyright holder. --Fæ (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Its absurd, to assume that the European Parliament is providing a photo permission not covering copyright issues. This permission was not restricted to daily press use, but covers all sorts of commercial and uncommercial usage including free licences. And to my knowledge the paliament holds all the rights nescessary for that. --Martin Kraft (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way: The European Parliament is extraterritorial! --Martin Kraft (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid the deletion of the pictures we should ask Mrs van Kampen to clarify the permission and to add a statement on the copyright of the Parliament building. In my opinion, this should be done by the person who had contact with her before (Olaf?). Otherwise, I volunteer to for contacting her. --ireas :talk: 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as the EP is not part of France (as per Martin Kraft) and a photo permission was even provided (as per Ralf Roletschek). —DerHexer (Talk) 21:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Pour toutes les raisons exprimées ci-dessus par mes confrères. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either: Sort the issue with the Parliament or the Architect studio, either Keep or delete the concerned pictures... Also Keep the pictures that were kept previously for de-minimis rationale: the given view with the flags is the view you have when you arrive to the parliament, nothing less nothing more. The fact the building in background is protected is a deminimis rationale as long the subject is the flags. I also don't know if the 'Place des terreaux' act could be applied here. Esby (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Permission by the European Parliament for all images taken during "Wiki loves Parliaments" is received in OTRS. Raymond 10:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the OTRS is not sufficient. It is only permission by the European Parliament contact to take photos of the exterior and interior. It mentions nothing on the copyright of the buildings; which is what FOP is pertaining to, and why those images stricked need to be unstricken. Permission will need to come from the architect/copyright holder. russavia (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my understanding this office of the EP has the right to give the permission for the architecture too. Should we ask for the internal documents/contracts between EP and architect? Raymond 12:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Russavia: I am pretty shure that the European Parliament holds all the rights nescessary, to give the photo permission, it gave to the WLP-team (and btw hundreds of journalists, photographers and political authors every year). Pictures of this buildings can not only be found in almost every newspaper and -magazin in Europe but in many non-editorial stocks and books as well. Its just implausible, that all this photos should be either authorised by the architect or be copyvios?! IMHO its highly plausible, that an institution, which is as depended off public coverage as the EP, holds all the exploitation rights for the building, it is situated in. --Martin Kraft (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Russavia, having read ticket:2014020510008962 (in translation). We have a duty under the precautionary principle to ensure the rights of the copyright holder are respected. An administrator in the European Parliament is not an agent for the copyright holder and unless you can direct us to an act of parliament which makes the building itself ineligible for copyright by the architect, then we can make no assumption that copyright does not apply. I suggest you write to the architect's company to obtain a release if you want these photographs hosted on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question, since the EP is extraterritorial (despite being located geographically in France), then I suppose it's plausible that French copyright law does not apply to it. Such a thing would, I imagine, depend upon whatever agreement that the EP/EU has with France. Has anyone thought to straight out ask our contacts at the EP to advise us on this, rather than have everyone play "bush copyright lawyer"? Lankiveil (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • Ok, i will ask there. --Ralf Roleček 08:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lankiveil: Sorry, but FoP (and therefore the question which exact copyright law is applicable in the EP) is just irrelevant for evaluation of the WLP and interieur pictures. The question here is, wether the European Parliament actually holds all the rights necessary to provided the photo permission, it provided to the WLP-Team. And (as I pointed out above) there is no real reason to to cast doubt on that?! --Martin Kraft (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lack of evidence of either a transfer of copyright, a relevant act of parliament or a release from the architect are "real reasons for doubt" per the Precautionary Principle. Repeating your statement with exclamation marks does not obviate the need for verifiable evidence. --Fæ (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. I have read the arguments here, and have read the OTRS email, and have read the background information of the project (without actually being involved). The precautionary principle, while an interesting idea, does not apply here as far as I am concerned, because there is no "significant doubt" about the freedom. Frankly, I think that some of the delete votes are simply overcautious because those voting have no formal training in copyright law. In short, there is no significant doubt, and arguments to the contrary are disingenuous. Martin Kraft says it well, and I have no doubt here that common sense will prevail. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, I always love arguments which essentially say that if you don't agree with me you're an idiot. Well sorry, but you are actually very, very wrong. I disagree with everything you have written and I ain't no blithering idiot. The building was designed by an architect, whom in this modern world holds copyright over their works, for the European Parliament. The building is located in France, where COM:FOP#France says that there is no freedom of panorama. The OTRS from the EP basically states that permission has been granted for photography to take place within and around the European Parliament. It says nothing about the copyright status of the buildings which would be photographed. It also mentions nothing about whom the copyright holder of the buildings of the EP are, and whether they have consented for photographs to appear on Commons under a specific licence. This, my friend, is common sense and why these files are at DR. What you wish to prevail is sheer lunacy. russavia (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Fair warning. I am going to delete all of these soon. Russavia is correct. The permission in OTRS is nowhere near sufficient -- all it says is that the photographers had permission to take the pictures. It is very like the permission you get inside some museums -- "you may take pictures here", which says nothing about any copyrights on the displayed works. There is nothing in the OTRS e-mails about copyright, no license, no mention of commercial use, and no statement that the permission is irrevocable. I do not think that the person sending the permission has any idea that the architect has a copyright which must be honored.
As for "extraterrioriality" -- it almost certainly doesn't exist. Even the UN building in New York is subject to US Federal and New York State law. Embassies have special rights, but a crime committed inside an embassy is tried according to local law. Any claim that somehow this building is not in France for copyright purposes would require a cite and discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "you think..." You dont speak german, you dont knew this person but you want to delete. Why we have OTRS? Why we have DR here wheen Admins like you all delete what she want? --Ralf Roleček 13:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Let me get this straight: What we have here, is not some private visitors permission, but an official press accreditation signed by the official press office of the European Parliament. These people are in touch with press and media everyday and very well aware of what rights have to be covered for unlimited broadcasting and commerial use. We worked at the EP with a group of wikipediaens from nine countries at the official invitation of the parliament itself, with the official brief to take photos of the parliament an its members an release them under a free licence. This was clear to anybody involved at any time. The WLP-project in Strasbourg was funded by the WMF and several Chapters. Its just absurd to compare this situation to some private museum visit, resulting in some semilegal pictures.
Btw.: All the big agencies (Getty, Corbis, AP)have hundreds of photos in stock, which are based on the same permission. All copyvios without exeption???? --Martin Kraft (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, being authorized to take pictures does not say anything about the license required for the copyrights of the works photographed. Would you say that this authorization means that any modern works of art hanging on the walls are fair game for photographers? Of course not, their copyrights remain under the control of the artists, just as the copyright for the building remains in control of the architect.
This is, as you say, a press office, accustomed to dealing with the press and not with commercial use, although you do include that in your broad statement. The press does not need to worry about the copyright for objects photographed because it is fair use so I doubt very much that the press office considered it. The permission says nothing about copyright license, but just gives permission to take photographs, much as many museums and other tourist sites require permission for photographers. We deal all the time with government officials who have little or no understanding of copyright. I suspect that this is one of those situations.
You can certainly clarify this be asking the press office three questions -- "Do you have the right to license the copyrights belonging to the architects and other creators whose works we have photographed? How did you acquire those rights? Do they cover commercial use?" Since, as you say, the press office invited our colleagues there, they should be very open to confirming such rights if they own them. Without such confirmation, though, all we have is a vague permission to take photographs and no license at all. You could also, of course, ask the architect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. --Ralf Roleček 12:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use as a press photo is commercial use. --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1. There is no Fair use in France or Germany. That's an anglosaxon right concept not applicable in continental europe. Press use is commercial!
As pointed out above stock agencies are providing hundreds of pictures of the european parliament for both editorial and promotional use. These photographers do not hold any other permission than we did. @Jameslwoodward: Do you really acusse Getty & Co of commiting copyvios in all this cases? --Martin Kraft (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accuse Getty of anything, but I am aware that the press often prints images for which the copyright is not clear. Their attitude seems to be that if the copyright holder complains, they can deal with it and that is cheaper than trying to clear copyright on everything they do. We, on the other hand, are specifically prohibited from taking that attitude. If you are so sure of your position and have such good relations with the press office, why is there any reluctance on your part to go back to them and ask them for the necessary licenses? Although you mocked my comment above, I still believe that we are in the same situation as a photographer who has permission from a museum to take pictures in the museum, but does not have any right to license images of any works of art that are under copyright. The right to license is very different from the right to take pictures and all we have now is the latter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mailed a few days ago the french representative of Architecte-studio, I cannot quote the answer I got because of the privavy of conversation laws. Now I can resume their points, basically I got two mails:
In the first my questions were not answered (basically I asked if they had transferred their rights to EP by contract) , they were not against the fact photos were taken, they mentionned a private convention between them and the European Parliament, and that the parliament agreement was necessary. They mentionned nothing about publication.
In the second mail, they mentionned that the usage of these images had to be declared to adagp, I believe this is not compliant with our hosting of free media.
I fear we will have no choice but to delete the photographs that don't have a de-minis rationale.
Esby (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing to the architects. Considering the long discussion here, representing many hours of volunteer time, could you copy these to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so that future OTRS volunteers can refer to the record if any clarification is needed? --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The architects dont have the rights of this picture, this is at the european parliament. And this building isnt in France because its Extraterritoriality. --Ralf Roleček 13:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ralf, nobody has yet provided verifiable evidence of your belief. This has been stated several times in this DR, if there is verifiable evidence that either:
  1. copyright (or any other French law) does not apply to the building and its environs, due to existing Government legislation, evidence for how copyright is legislated or enforced in the territory would need to be provided,
  2. the architects have waived their copyright or specifically granted a free release for all photographs,
  3. copyright was transferred by contract to European Parliament operational management or similar official correspondent,
  4. or for some other verifiable rationale that is legally meaningful, the architects cannot enforce copyright for any photograph of the building,
then please provide it. This DR has been open for over 3 weeks now, which should have been plenty of time for the many experienced Wikimedians that were specially funded to take part in the project to seek out or request confirmation so there could be no challenge to keeping these useful and educational photographs on Commons rather than relying on Fair Use rationales under US law. Thank you --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There is no credible evidence suggesting that these images are licensed under a Commons-compatiable license. Furthermore, OTRS has informed me that the emails received do not contain sufficient permission details to allow the files to be hosted on Commons. -FASTILY 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note by user:esby - I restored 4 files that were kept by De-Minimis in a previous DR, these files should be handled separately. See here Esby (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2014 (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.

Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg

[edit]

I think that the interior architecture of the parliament building (not people, plants or furniture) is the subject of these photos. As discussed at w:de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Nachtrag_zu_.E2.80.9EMal_wieder:_.C3.84rger_mit_Commons.E2.80.9C_.2F_.E2.80.9EWeitere_L.C3.B6schwut_auf_Commons.E2.80.9C, there may be a problem with the permission recorded in OTRS.

Rybec (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete There has been no release from the architect and no evidence supplied by anyone that the rights of the architect are not protected in law; this includes Ticket:2014020510008962 as of the current date. --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The information I posted on WD:K in the German language Wikipedia only applies to the exterior of the building. Mrs van Kampen told me by telephone that there is no problem with pictures of the interior, e. g. the plenary. --ireas (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, in what way does Mrs van Kampen represent the Architect? --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not want to imply this. I just want to make clear that the disclosure that I received only applies to pictures of the exterior. Things might be different (= better for us) for pictures of the interior. --ireas (talk)
        • It may be an idea to highlight which photographs are focused on interior features/decore/transient scenes rather than any significant representation of the Architecture. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to exclude those from this DR. However, in File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-109.jpg, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-138.jpg, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-139.jpg, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-141.jpg, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-115.jpg and File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-114.jpg, people can be seen. In File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-107.jpg a person and a piece of equipment are shown. I've added annotations. Rybec (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2014 (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.

Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg

[edit]

(See previous DRs.) Same reason, {{NoFoP-France}}

Josve05a (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, previous erroneous deletions can't change the fact that this is a public building paid with the taxes of EU-citizens, and the photos were created for/with/by some "Wiki loves everybody" project. The description of File:14-02-05-straszburg-RalfR-01.jpg should be fixed. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean anything. COpyright law in France still apply, no matter who paid for the building (justas with a painting or a movie, you can't reproduce it) and "were created for/with/by some "Wiki loves everybody" project" doesn't mean anything either Have you watched anything from Wiki Loves Monument? Lots of COM:FoP issues, and copyright problems. Josve05a (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They solved that problem somehow for their own "LOW" images, it involves mentioning "Louise WEISS building: © Architecture Studio". –Be..anyone (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the page reads "Rights usage terms", the page only lists the copyright holders of some buildings, without providing any usage terms for them. The linked page is therefore of no use for us. --Stefan4 ( talk) 23:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link was for photo copyright details, their general usage terms are at the bottom of this and all other pages at Legal Notice. But their general legal notice doesn't help here. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonderivative and therefore not acceptable on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all images in this section. Under French law, you may not distribute pictures of buildings unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years. This is not the case here. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as per Stefan4. Natuur12 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2014 (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.

Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg

[edit]

To quote Jim (Jameslwoodward): "Copyright law makes no distinction between interior and exterior architecture." {{NoFoP-France}}

Josve05a (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is no France, it is EP.
    • Permission is given. --Ralf Roleček 07:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • TO quote Jameslwoodward again, since I'm lazy: "Again, being authorized to take pictures does not say anything about the license required for the copyrights of the works photographed. Would you say that this authorization means that any modern works of art hanging on the walls are fair game for photographers? Of course not, their copyrights remain under the control of the artists, just as the copyright for the building remains in control of the architect. [...] The permission says nothing about copyright license, but just gives permission to take photographs, much as many museums and other tourist sites require permission for photographers." See the second DR on this page from the top. Josve05a (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand why do you want to delete these pictures? Because it's a modern building? But it's a "public space". So it's forbidden to take a picture of all modern buildings? ;p (Sorry for my English). Niko67000 (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The architect owns the copyright to the building. Just as you cannot make copies of a recent book and sell them, or make copies of recent paintings and sell them, you cannot take photographs of recent architecture and sell them. Some countries allow this for buildings, but not France. Commons requires that images be free for commercial use, so we cannot keep these without permission from the architect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But here on Wikicommons we don't sell pictures. And if we add "Architecture Studio 1999" (architecte and date of the constuction) on the description, that coulb be good? Niko67000 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Licensing/fr#Licences_acceptables. --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, "Commons requires that images be free for commercial use" -- that is because there are very few uses that are not commercial. Just as giving credit to the author does not allow you to sell copies of a book, so giving credit to the architect does not allow infringing on his copyright. As shown by the several discussions above, this issue is really very well settled..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO at least these images are ok in terms of De Minimis. Here the architecture is clearly not the subject and the things visible hardly meet the Threshold of originality. // Martin Kraft (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The European Parliament NO is France! --Ralf Roleček 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg is in France, and the European Parliament is in France either. Yet it is extraterritorial (German: exterritorial). This means it is not within the sovereignity of France. But it is within the French legal order. See e. g. the Duden Recht lexicon (German) about Exterritorialität:
Exterritorialität: die kraft Völkerrechts zugunsten bestimmter Personen und Sachen bestehende Ausnahme von der Gerichtsbarkeit und Zwangsgewalt (nicht von der Rechtsordnung) des Gebietsstaates.
Duden Recht A-Z. Fachlexikon für Studium, Ausbildung und Beruf. 2. Aufl. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut & F.A. Brockhaus 2010. Lizenzausgabe Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung
Even if this would not be the case, your argument is not valid: If the EP would not be in France, there are two options:
  • There is no copyright in the EP. We would be allowed to use the photo. But this would also mean that all other works in the EP would not be eligible to copyright – your pictures, texts, … I think it is obvious that this can’t be the case.
  • An other copyright law applies. But which one? And to use the pictures, you had to prove that there this other copyright law has an exemption for freedom of panorama.
There are only two things that would enable us to keep the photos:
  • The depicted architecture is not eligible to copyright or de minimis. This has to be checked for each file individually.
  • We get a permission by the copyright owner. At the moment, we do not have this permission. We would have to contact the architect to receive it.
Regards, ireas (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, the photos were created for/with/by some "Wiki loves everybody" project. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How would that have any relevance in regard to copyright? --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete in general. Both the interior and the exterior of the building are copyrighted. In some cases, the images focus on things which may have been made by other people than the architect. For example, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-152.jpg focuses on some stairs which were maybe designed by someone else. Still, that doesn't make the image free; it just means that you should ask someone else for permission (or wait until someone else has been dead for at least 70 years). Compare with this case where Getty Images France was fined for violating the copyright to two different chair models. The stairs and the chairs seem to be of similar creativity. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. Natuur12 (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:European_Parliament,_Strasbourg&oldid=143593677"