Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of the Kirchner Museum

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:Interior of the Kirchner Museum

There is no FoP for interior views in Switzerland, its architect is sill alive.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how are the individual work? Not all interior views in Switzerland are protected by copyright! It muss be a individual Work. It is a good, diffused, illuminated museum show room a individual work? I say no. And this photos are take at during a official GLAM event with a permission of the museum. --Bobo11 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The artworks are, for the most part, de minimis. The rooms are quite simple and uncreative. They represent a de minimis portion of the larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here the link to FoP Switzerland, where you see that no interior views are permitted. The architects are Annette Gigon and Mike Guyer who are both still alive. In Switzerland there exists a standard of life + 70 years. Under the Swiss copyright law art. 2 works of architecture are protected by copyright. @IronGargoyle It's not about the artwork, which if it's from Kirchner is anyway in the Public Domain, but about the architecture and the interior views. Exterior appearances are permitted by FoP, interiors not. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How part interior are copyright? Only individual work can became a Copyright. Not all part of a building also a part of individual architecture. No FoP say not no Fotos from inside of a new constructed house. No FoP say only, no Photos from copyright Interior ore Photos from a copyrighted part of architecture. So you can give en exemplar what the copyrighted part of this withe rooms are. You can't? Then it the „no FoP inside“ also not a Problem. When you can't see a copyrighted architecture part on the Pictures, than there are no reason to deleted this photos. Bobo11 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo11 Mit deinem Englisch kann es zu einigen Missverständnissen kommen. Kannst deine Argumente auch gerne auch Deutsch kommunizieren. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzfassung: Wenn auf den Bilden nichts urheberrechltich schützbarers zu sehen ist (die Bilder sind genügend alt!), dann braucht es auch keine Panoramafreiheit! Die Löschgrund ist also an den Haaren herbeigezogen! Bobo11 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info Bobo11 pointed me to this discussion. - My opinion: Keep most images, but possibly Delete some. I'm usually very cautious when it comes to interior views of modern architecture. There is no FoP for interior views in Switzerland, and modern architecture can be an issue, Paradise Chronicle is completely right in this regard. I've often voted "delete" in architecture (interior views) cases to err on the side of caution even when others didn't see it as creative enough. However, in this specific case, I think that the design of the rooms is indeed too simple to be copyrighted. They are very, very simple boxes with translucent ceilings. - So, the discussion should be only about the works shown IMHO. I wouldn't say they are de minimis as the images lose their meaning without the works shown, and the resolution is high. But most are public domain works by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, so no issue. Some, however, show photographs, most prominently File:Davos Kirchner Museum Innenansicht P6A3924.jpg, and my question is: How old is that large photograph to the left? Who took it and when? It looks like an enlarged reproduction of an old photograph, with fingerprints visible, maybe it was taken by Kirchner himself? Then it wouldn't be an issue either. The same question goes for images like File:Davos Kirchner Museum Innenansicht 1K4A4253.jpg - viewed in full resolution, the photos to the left and right wall in the foreground are reproduced quite clearly, so the question is how old these are and who took them (Kirchner?). Gestumblindi (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Say it is from Kirchner himself. Bobo11 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input @Gestumblindi. My DR is motivated by several successful DRs (successful means the files were deleted) of interiors of museums in the past such as here, here, here, here, here, and here to name a few. The arguments were pretty much the same. No matter how this DR ends, I'd appreciate if we update FoP Switzerland, so there will be less confusion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the deletion requests you listed are comparable. There are either complex architectural elements, sculptures/paintings, or no one pointed out your ignoring of de minimis principles and that extremely simple/minor elements are not copyrightable. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FoP Switzerland, Paradise Chronicle, is in my opinion already perfectly clear. When it comes to threshold of originality questions, there is always some subjectivity in the discussion which no update of a FoP page can prevent. I know of some people here who would almost never see creativity in simple modern interior architecture, and others who do. This is not a matter of the rules, but of individual interpretation of the rules. For this kind of discussion, we have no hard and fast "if given A, then B". Allow me to comment on the examples you cited, as I took a look at the deleted pictures:

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:LAC Lugano: Quite striking, characteristic interior architecture, deletion was right.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Basel Tinguely museum interior ramp.JPG: Another striking picture that shows architecture typical for the architect Mario Botta. Rightly deleted as well.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GLADIATOR. THE TRUE STORY - Exhibition at Basel Museum of Ancient Art and Ludwig Collection (Ank Kumar) 07.jpg: Shown are postcards with, apparently, mostly ancient art, but in modern photographs of 3D objects. I agree with deletion.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Exposition au MCBA 04.jpg: Modern art in the exhibition. I wouldn't have deleted for the interior architecture (too plain), but for the artworks visible.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA museum, Zurich 08.jpg: Copyrighted trophy (deletion is OK), not about architecture.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fondation Beyeler: In this case, I disagree with some of the deletions. For example, File:Riehen BS Fondation Beyeler Ausstellung Claude Monet 2017 IV.jpg shows only visitors viewing public domain paintings by Monet in a standard museum room. In this case, I agree with what IronGargoyle wrote there: "The building as a whole may be a creative architectural work, but simple individual gallery room walls are not". That is also my firm opinion: You don't look at these walls and say "Oh yes, that's a Renzo Piano". Every building, also by famous architects, contains plain rooms that have no artistic character. I feel reminded of the "perpetual" case of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Harpa (concert hall) - over time (you can expand the older discussions there) I have nominated many, many files of views of this concert hall in Iceland for deletion (also exterior views, as Iceland has no Commons-compatible FoP whatsoever), but notably, in the June 2023 request several images that contained mainly plain(ish) interiors were kept, and though I wouldn't have seen them all as plain enough, I can accept that. - As we're discussing Holly's recent Beyeler decision among others, a ping to User:Holly Cheng as well for information. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time to double check the deleted files. For me there are still some things to clarify. First plain walls are not just plain walls if they are described to be the plain walls of a certain museum. Or categorized as such. Then also ToO Switzerland says Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose". I understand from this that every artistic creation is copyrightable, also plain walls from a certain building. Architecture works a lot with the distribution of light, for which the Kirchner Museum was also famous for, specially for the ceiling, which is depicted on most of the files in the DR. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: Thank you, too, for engaging in a level-headed and considerate discussion. - I think you're misunderstanding the situation a bit, and would like to emphasize the "individual character" wording from the copyright law. The originality and copyright protection of a work doesn't carry over to every individual part of the work; copyright protection is created by the work as a whole, and whether partial depictions still contain something copyrighted depends upon what is being shown. I'll try to explain what I mean by two non-architectural examples: Take a copyrighted novel. That novel contains the sentence "She opened the door". You are absolutely free to reproduce that sentence from the novel, because the isolated sentence has no individual character and the words "She opened the door" appear in many works. A whole paragraph from the novel that shows characteristics of the author's style, however, would be copyrighted. Or let's for a moment assume File:Julius Caesar (Museo del Prado E-378) 01.jpg were a still copyrighted work by a modern artist (it isn't, it's from the 16th century). You would be free to distribute depictions of only the pedestal, because it's a generic shape often seen in pedestals of busts, no creative work in itself. - Likewise, if you depict an absolutely standard boxy, white museum room that isn't really distinguishable from other museum rooms, there's nothing copyrighted in this picture, even if the museum building itself is protected by copyright. - Having said all that, I do not want to simply dismiss your argument that the ceiling's design / lighting might be copyrightable. Personally, I still think it's probably not, but given the "Im Zauberlicht" article you cite, I can see that one could assess this differently. If the admin processing this request comes to the conclusion that the special lighting is too much of a copyright problem, I certainly can live with that. But I would then strongly emphasize that this shouldn't be used as a precedent to delete images of public domain artworks hanging on nondescript modern museum walls. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection if someone wants to create a UDR for those files. —holly {chat} 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, except for some of the Fondation Beyeler images, I think the deletions were in order, but I don't feel strongly enough about it for a UDR. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I expand a bit on the light. That the ceiling is transparent in a museum became to be special in the 19th century. But since Davos has a snowy winter not the same solution was needed and therefore the light does not directly come vertically, but diagonally through windows in the walls. Also the transparent part would usually not reach the very end of the walls since it would have led the frames of the paintings to provide shade on to them. But Gigon/Guyer architects wanted the transparent part to reach the end of walls chose a special sort of glass that would allow enough light for the paintings but not for the shades of the frames and eventually also compelled the light specialist. (Im Zauberlicht, p.10, its the link of the phrase, in the same paragraph is also the other info) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You write „That the ceiling is transparent in a museum became to be special in the 19th century.“, You understood what this means? >The transparent ceiling can not decrease under copyright. The ceiling are not a new innovation, it is an old technology to illuminate rooms with soft daylight. Yes on the roof and in construction can give elements how can be covered by patents/copyright. But, can you sea one of this copyrighted element on this photo? No. When you cant sea a covered items on this photos, in succession no problem with “no FoP for interior views in Switzerland”. Bobo11 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To spin your phrase a bit further, do you want to suggest that transparent windows in a building are not anymore copyrightable? @Bobo11 answering to your question if I can see one of the copyrighted elements in this photo (I guess the plural form was meant here). Yes, for example that the transparent ceiling extends to the ends of the walls. Further specialities of the building are described in a monograph on the museum. Still I strongly believe we are not able and also not required to describe all the originalities/specialities of an artwork/building for which I believe in the Swiss Copy Right Law the phrase works are literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose exists. And straight underneath that phrase are the listed works which include works of architecture. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The transparent ceiling are not new and unique architecture elements, and hi gives a lot of Museums with of them (Google “Tageslichtdecke”). This is not the one characteristic detail from structure of the Kirchner Museum Davos or from creations of architecture firm Gigon / Guyer. It is aktuell more or less the standard design from art gallerys (if you can work with daylight). Why you means, standard design can protected by copyright? Standard is an the opposite of individual. But from a protected by copyright, is individual work the basic requirement. No individual work = no protection by copyright. And in the end, no protection by copyright = no requirement to must have a FoP Rule.-Bobo11 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, none of the ceilings reach the end of the walls. And it is an individual work if the file is a recognizable part of an individual (a specified) work. And the files are categorized within the category Kirchner Museum, so the files are a recognizable part of a specific work. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of the Kirchner Museum

Files in Category:Interior of the Kirchner Museum

Navigation menu

Search