Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palazzo del Governo (Taranto)

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:Palazzo del Governo (Taranto)

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this palace, Armando Brasini, died in 1965. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2036.

Adamant1 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a church, but the seat of the civil administration/local government of Taranto. COM:GVT Italy says works by or on behalf of the Government or the Fascist Party (of Benito Mussolini, who was the one who inaugurated it in 1934) only have a copyright of 20 years. I assume that the seat of a Government is created on behalf of the Government. And FOP does exist in Italy for works of which copyright has expired. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, palace. Regardless, it's not really clear if or to what degree what you cited applies. One reason being that WLMI is known for getting permission from local governments to take photographs of buildings that were created on their behalf and expensive even if it's more then 20 years old, which really doesn't make sense if the copyright is expired in those cases. Also, there doesn't seem to be any clear legal guidance on what exactly is or isn't covered by the article your referencing. There is a couple of circumstantial third party commentaries that don't even mention buildings to begin with, only databases. But again, it's circumstantial and has nothing to do with images since palaces obviously aren't databases. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am also not really sure what is correct, it's only meant as a comment not as a keep vote. The first paragraph only mentions works seemingly referring to article numbers 11 and/or 29. The Databases are under Article 52. I tried to access an online copy of the Italian copyright law to double check what was meant but wasn't successful. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I was mainly explaining the situation for anyone else that comes along. I appreciate that you at least tried to research it even if you weren't able to find anything. A lot these DRs mainly come down to how ambiguous the guidelines and laws are. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion on Art.1 and Art.11 of the Italian copyright law here, specially the comments by the Italian Admin Ruthven and Marta Arosio (WMIT) of Wikimedia Italy. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked the conversation isn't over yet and it seems like there's more disagreement about it then not. If files are going to be kept based on a Village Pump discussion then there should at least be finished and have a clear outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article 11 of the italian copyright law, the public administrations keep the copyright for the works made on their behalf, wich expires after 20 years. I'm also quite surprised that this DR was opened after that in the discussion at the village pump and in other DRs it had been established a consensus on the fact that there is plenty of evidence - although circumstantial - that this article is valid also for buildings. WMI needs authorizations because of a non-copyright restrictions, as I've already explained in other DRs, it's really not relevant here. And anyway the fact that there is a specific authorization from the (previous) copyright holder to use the photos of the building with a license CC-0 it'd be an additional reason for keeping the image, surely not a reason for deleting it!--Friniate (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gone over this a couple of times already, but the last time I checked there isn't a consensus about it and I'd appreciate it if you stopped acting like there was one. Not only is it extremely disingenuous and bad faithed on your part to pretend there's a consensus about something when their isn't one, but it just gets in the way of this ever actually being resolved. So stop doing it. And as to the authorizations (which again, we've already gone over multiple times) if they had nothing to do with copyright then there's no reason either WLM or the government of Italy would bother with them because like you say we don't care about non-copyright restrictions. Nor do I assume does the government of Italy. So they clearly have something to do with copyright. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for them in the first place. Although like I've said we've already gone over it ad nauseum. So I'm not going to get in yet another back and forth with you about it. Your clearly not here to contribute in a collaborative manor anyway and I have better things to do with my time then continuingly counter the same groundless talking points. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Wasn't it you who said two days ago that the fact that this article applies to building has been properly documented after I linked the last piece of evidence? And now I'm bad faithed for pointing out that there has been a consensus in the discussion in which at this stage all the users (including you!) agreed on the fact that it's indeed valid? Friniate (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway even if you clearly changed opinion in the last two days, you haven't still brought any evidence at all that says that the law doesn't apply here. And at this point, with a lot of evidence on my side, all the users excpet you agreeing with me, it's clearly you who should start to research and to bring something backing you opinion, instead opening mass DRs. Friniate (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that right there is exactly what I'm talking about. You bring up that there's an established consensus in the Village Pump discussion that the government owns the copyright to buildings and then pivot to something else when I point out there isn't one instead of admitting to the mistake. All you do is spout obvious nonsense and then either ignore it or change the subject when someone corrects you. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having described exactly what you are doing. Anyway, anyone can read the discussion and see that plenty of evidence has been brought. Opening DRs just hoping that they'll end in some way with the images being deleted and overcoming through DRs the discussion on the matter, that at this stage shows a clear indication of the fact that the law is indeed valid, it just seems a disruptive behavour on your side, aimed not at understanding the law, but just at deleting the work of other people just for the pleasure of doing so. Friniate (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for your claim that there's "a lot of evidence" on your side BTW. All you have on your side is two, TWO!, circumstantial documents that don't even have to do with buildings to begin with. Yet you act like there's a huge mountain of evidence on your side that I'm ignoring because I like doing this or something when in fact you have essentially nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a document which sums up the current mainstream interpretation by legal experts of the word "published" (which is the only weak element that you have to say that the law is not valid) and that it clearly shows that building are included. Then I have 2 other pieces of evidence backing up this interpretation in various fields. Circumstantial, yes, but solid enough considering that I'm actually only saying that we should follow the law, and that given the peculiarity of the issue there are really very few documents to begin with (I don't even think that there has ever been a legal controversy on this matter). On your side there is literally anything at all, just an interpretation made up by you and that you want to impose opening repeatedly mass-DRs despite any evidence or any opinion from other users. Friniate (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

none of the documents you've provided me with "clearly show buildings are included." If anything they show the exact opposite. Really, you don't have jack outside of strawmen and ad hominem. That's essentially it though. Which is why you can't go one discussion without saying multiple things that are patently false or making the conversation personal. Otherwise you'd just state the evidence and leave it that, instead of repeatedly bludgeoning every conversation with false information or making this about me when I'm not the only one who thinks buildings aren't covered. Or at least thinks that there isn't clear evidence either way. As a side to that, I'm sick of every DR I start that's even slightly related to Italy being derailed with your false, off-topic nonsense. So I'd appreciated it if you could go concern troll someone else's DRs. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see here your usual tactic: you just can't answer on the topic and therefore you use childish tricks (like saying "it shows the opoosite", as if that would be a valid and convincing answer) and you go with personal attacks. I'd appreciate too to use my time in other ways, but until you harrass other users who in good faith uploaded images perfectly legitimate that you want to delete only because you have made up an interpretation that you want to impose against any evidence, any logical reason, anything at all, then I have to intervene in order to hinder this damaging behaviour. Friniate (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one brought up the village pump discussion and documents my dude. If don't relate to the topic though, cool. That's on you for making this about the conversation on the village pump when its not relevant. I can only respond to what other people bring up though. But like I was saying that's just how you seem to work. You say something pantently false and illrevant to the conversation. Then when I respond act like I'm the one doing it when yiu brought thr thing up to begin with instead of just saying you were wrong. But sure dude, I'm the one harassing people and doing damaging behavior. Whatever you say. Can we drop it now or do you have any other off-topic, false comments that you want to make and then blame me for when I inevitably have to correct you?

Honestly, Friniate. All you had to do in this or any other DR say that you think images of buildings owned by the government of Italy shouldn't be nominated for deletion until the conversation the Village Pump is resolved. I probably would have been cool with that and stopped for now. But you just can't do it for some reason. Instead you constantly cry bully and make insulting, false statements about me and the facts. So I could really care less less at this point. Its totally on your lack of scruples in how you've handled this though. Don't blame me because you don't have the ability to assume good faith or otherwise treat me with a minocrome of decency. I'm not going to stop doing something of the only thing your side brings to this is a bunch of lies, insults, and hollow threats. Sorry. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for admitting that you are just opening DRs only as an act of spite, although it was pretty much clear at this stage. Friniate (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(for other people seeing the DR: the relevant discussion is here). Friniate (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The building is in the public domain since 1954: it is a work made for hire on behalf of the Province of Taranto; per art. Art. 29. of Italian Copyright law (La durata dei diritti esclusivi di utilizzazione economica spettanti, a termini dell'art. 11, alle amministrazioni dello Stato, alle Province, ai Comuni, alle accademie, agli enti pubblici culturali nonché agli enti privati che non perseguano scopi di lucro, è di vent'anni a partire dalla prima pubblicazione, qualunque sia la forma nella quale la pubblicazione è stata effettuata). Ruthven (msg) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palazzo del Governo (Taranto)

Files in Category:Palazzo del Governo (Taranto)

Navigation menu

Search