Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Korea Polytechnics

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:Korea Polytechnics

[edit]

Per COM:FOP SK, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, where the threshold of originality for structures is incredibly low.

ƏXPLICIT 01:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also COM:DM South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Per Ox1997cow, looks like Panmunjeom cases, below TOO. (wait, File:Korea Polytechnic IV Daejeon 01.jpg is problemic? that logo on pillar might be beyond TOO, ditto for File:Korea Polytechnic IV Daejeon 03.jpg and File:Korea Polytechnic IV Daejeon 04.jpg). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Panmunjeom , photos of structures in North Korea or photos of structures in South Korea taken from North Korea both benefit from the FOP provisions of the latter. As noted at COM:FOP SK, this wall is protected by copyright. I highly doubt an entire building would get a pass. ƏXPLICIT 02:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: You screenshot is to me an automobile advertisement, which hence the cars are copyrighted enough, but here I see only many simple buildings. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misunderstand my comment, as it had nothing to do with the car. The company that produced the advertisement linked above was sued by the architect of the building for infringing on his rights. The Seoul Central District Court agreed and ruled that the company must compensate him. My point was that a single wall exterior of a building is protected by South Korea's FOP laws. If that basic wall is considered complex enough to be protected—which wasn't even the focus of the commercial to begin with—then these more complex buildings would be, too. ƏXPLICIT 05:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit:  Comment I agree that the ruling is a case in which it can be seen that there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. However, I did some analysis. The building in the ruling is the UV House, and according to this introduction, the building is recognized for its creativity and art. (The UV House, designed by architectural designer Min Gyu-am, is a representative structure of Heyri that is recognized for its creativity and art in terms of the overall framework including the arrangement and combination of space and various components. I used Google Translate.) Then think of a building that doesn't. According to COM:TOO South Korea, As a condition of originality that can be recognized as a copyright, it is said that it is not an imitation, but that it can be distinguished from existing ones. If so, how about this one?
File:Microsoft Korea Building.jpg
If I talk about the building that appears as the main object in this photo, I would say that it is a simple rectangular shape and the walls are made of glass. If this is the originality that deserves copyright, I think it's like saying that there are so many copyright infringement buildings in the world. Therefore, I think it is not good to say that South Korea's threshold of originality for structures is very low. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the ruling, the very definition of architecture is art. From en:Architecture: "Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art." From Cambridge dictionary: "the art and practice of designing and making buildings". The UV House wall has already been deemed copyrightable—which does set a low threshold, just look at it—so we have to work from that in applying COM:FOP SK. The original Korean text of COM:TOO SK suggests (via machine translation, this Korean beyond me): "Article 2, No. 1 of the Copyright Act stipulates a work as a “creative work that expresses human thoughts or emotions.” In this context, creativity does not mean originality in a complete sense, and it is not just a work that imitates others, but the author. It only means that it contains the expression of one's own thoughts or feelings, and in order to meet these requirements, the work is only given the characteristics as the product of the author's own mental effort and can be distinguished from the existing works of other authors. It would be enough to be there." So a work does not even have to be completely original, it just requires the author to express themselves through their work. ƏXPLICIT 00:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how very low the standard for threshold of originality is, there are certainly buildings that are not subject to copyright protection. Look at this file.
File:Seoul and N Seoul Tower.jpg (This file was undeleted by this undeletion request.)
Many of the buildings in this photo are simple, consisting of brick or stone walls and windows. If these buildings are copyrighted, the buildings in this photo are infringing on the copyrights of other buildings. But what about reality? When someone built one of the buildings in this photo, did they get the copyright permission of the other building? Of course, two or more buildings may have the same architect or construction company, but most of them do not know the architect or construction company, or even if they do know, the architect or construction company is often different.
Ox1997cow (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The onus of proving that a building in not copyrighted lies with the user arguing to keep it, which you have failed to do. South Korea's highest court in the country ruled a two-dimensional view of a wall in the background of a commercial shown for five seconds violated the architect's copyright. It is you who must argue that these three-dimensional photos of buildings are less original than that wall, which you have yet to do. What you have done, in addition to citing other files exist, is completely misrepresent the case of File:Seoul and N Seoul Tower.jpg, which was undeleted after being determined that the photo is of a cityscape that falls under the de minimis clause because there isn't a single building or structure as the main focal point. You should be well aware of this since you initiated the undeletion discussion to begin with. ƏXPLICIT 13:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Therefore,  I withdraw my nomination. However, I do not withdraw my claim to refer to COM:DM South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama for (modern) buildings in South Korea, per COM:FOP South Korea. As the example of the wall shows, this is also valid for parts of buildings. These images were all made to show the complete building, so they have to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Korea_Polytechnics&oldid=610300060"