Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Freedom monument (Riga)

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:Freedom monument (Riga)

[edit]

As per Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Category:Freedom_monument_(Riga): This monument has two co-authors ([1] [2] [3]): the sculptor lv:Kārlis_Zāle, who died in 1942, and the architect lv:Ernests_Štālbergs, who died in 1958. COM:Latvia states that Copyright is in effect for the lifetime of an author and for 70 years after their death and Copyright to a work created by co-authors is in effect for the duration of the lives of all the co-authors and for 70 years after the death of the last surviving co-author. So copyright will expire 1 January 2029. The following are files, where copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction (see template:NoFoP-Latvia). Files that clearly show only the sculptor's work, are not listed. If you can argue, that COM:DM applies for any particular image, please do so.

Xunks (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Freedom monument (Riga)

[edit]
  •  Question Good point. lv:Brīvības piemineklis says "Autors: Kārlis Zāle + Ernests Štālbergs" but en:Freedom Monument says "Designed by: Kārlis Zāle". We need to be sure what is correct before we decide. Since one died in 1942 and the other in 1958 it makes a big difference. I also think we need to know who designed what. If one of them created the bottom part (the stone) and the other designed the statue on top (metal) then perhaps we could keep photos that only show the part designed by the person that died in 1942?
I do not speak Latvian and do not know who created the websites mentioned, so I do not know if it is possible that the websites are not 100% correct. --MGA73 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: there are three external sources provided above. Surely there are many others. Of course, this issue can be discussed, but based on reliable sources, and not in any way on Wikipedia articles. Xunks (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xunks: The English Wikipedia article say "After minor corrections made by the author and supervising architect Ernests Štālbergs, construction began on 18 November 1931." and the source of that is "(in Latvian) "Latvijas Enciklopēdija" (I sējums) Rīga 2002 SIA "Valērija Belokoņa izdevniecība" ISBN 9984-9482-1-8".
If cited correct the work of Ernests Štālbergs is only minor and perhaps COM:DM or not above COM:TOO. As I said I do not speak Latvian so I do not if the 3 mentioned sorces say anything about "minor corrections" or not or what these corrections were. If he corrected the foot and the photo shows the head then what? --MGA73 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of any authors dividing copyrights by parts of the body of a created sculpture or by bricks of a constructed building - either there is the only author or there are several of them. I don't think you can achieve anything with such an approach. Xunks (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There can be no doubt that this is a joint work of both authors. At the referenced site we find numerous sketches by the architect Ernests Štalbergs which show that he was involved in designing the entire monument: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Hence, we have to delete this set and leave a warning at Category:Freedom monument (Riga) until the photographs can be restored in 2029. At that time we should upload the sketches as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AFBorchert: thank you for these sketches. Do yoг think now that files like this should also be included in the nomination? Xunks (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xunks: Sure per this sketch by Ernests Štalbergs. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate the contribution of the architect in this case, it is perhaps helpful to compare the original design of Kārlis Zāle (which won the competition) with the actual design: [10] vs. File:1941.gada deportācijām veltītie piemiņas pasākumi (27055950363).jpg, [11], [12] and [13] (sketches all by the architect). There are significant differences throughout the entire monument. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly question: if the sculpture is out of copyright and the only thing subject to copyright is the obelisk itself (sans sculpture), what is the threshold of originality in Latvia? If you were to make a nearly-identical obelisk (with no sculptures), would Latvia consider that to be a copyright violation? It doesn't seem to be especially complex once you take out the sculpture. --B (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Minieurope 2007 068.JPG is another one that depicts only the sculpture and should be excluded. --B (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @B: You have probably missed comments right above your one: [14]. The sculpture is not out of copyright, more files might be added and no one excluded. Xunks (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if you can identify the separate contributions of different authors, they are not joint authors. For a book where each chapter was written by a different author, there is a separate copyright on each chapter, for example. Latvian law Article 9(1) says: If a work has two or more authors and the individual contribution of each author to the creation of the work cannot be extracted as a separate work, copyright in the work shall belong to all the co-authors jointly. So if there was one sculptor and one architect, then the sculptures themselves (since they can be separated) have a term based just upon the sculptor's life. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is just me but I do not see that the sketches shows that actual changes were made. To me it could could also just be a plan how to construct the thing so that it will not fall apart (technical things) and a time line for when to create the differend parts. I do not think you can obtain copyright for calculations on how to construct something so it can hold. If the changes made are not minor and if he changes relate to all of the monument then I of course agree that we have to delete. --MGA73 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: Please see my comment above and please do not underestimate the role of architects in monuments like this. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AFBorchert: Thank you for your work here. I saw your comment and think it is good and relevant. I'm just saying I can't see the changes. Since I raised the question I thought it would be relevant to let you all know that I saw the discussion and the argument. --MGA73 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: You know, if you don't see the difference in projects and don't understand what architects do, it's not easy to choose a way for discourse that won't inadvertently offend you. If you only knew how important proportions, angle of view, harmony with the surrounding space are in this matter. And this is only the simplest of what distinguishes the Author from mediocrity. I'm sorry for that. --Xunks (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not get offended. I'm confident the closing admin will know. Copyright protect creativity not hard work. So for me the question is who does the creative part. The math behind is also important but it is not a matter of copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is so hard because it is truly creative. I never cease to be amazed how ignorant your ideas about the role of an architect are. Xunks (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing could be muddied by the law in place when the monument was constructed, and law changes since -- was there implied ownership at the time? Was there even a copyright law in Latvia then? They became the Latvian SSR only later in 1940 (and really, after World War II since they were occupied by Germany for that, and then the Soviet Union thereafter). The current text of the Latvian copyright law is only since 2000, and their previous law only in effect from 1993. Copyright transfers implied by previous laws may well still be in effect, and for a national monument like this, not sure that you would give original authors the full right to exploit the works today. Do heirs of these authors currently claim any rights over exploitations of the monument? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Per above discussion and per discussion in the village pump. The work is copyrighted until 70 pma of the architect, who died in 1958, see lv:Ernests Štālbergs. The image will be in PD 71 years after this year and can be undeleted in 2029. Can be undeleted earlier if permission for publication with a free licence is obtained from the heirs per VRT. Some have had doubts whether parts of the monument are not copyrighted, because these parts are supposedly designed by the sculptor lv:Kārlis_Zāle, who died in 1942. These parts could be in PD. However this has been questioned as well by others. So imho these images should be deleted as well, per COM:PRP. The question is whether a monument can only be partly copyrighted, a question wcurrentdescription of COM:Latvia is valid. If you do not agree with my decision to delete the file(s), please ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. If you do so, formulate your motivation why this image (or these images) can be maintained very clearly and base your motivation on the Commons policies. After that, another administrator will take a decision.. --Ellywa (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Freedom_monument_(Riga)&oldid=720019332"