Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pillar of Shame (Hong Kong)

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:Pillar of Shame (Hong Kong)

[edit]

The Pillar of Shame was removed in 2021, FOP no longer be applicable.

A1Cafel (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment That's a good point. By treating it as temporary because it was removed, are we effectively taking a political stand in favor of the Chinese Communist Party and its representatives in Hong Kong and against the democracy movement? Something worth considering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A question is that when the sculpture was installed, there is a chance that the sculpture will be removed one day? Nonetheless, since the sculpture was removed, it cannot be considered as permanent, so I start the deletion request. The above DR is 100% without any political concern. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understand that this is somewhat of a devil's advocate argument, but I think it's a somewhat important one, because there's always a chance anything can be removed. Consider the case of the original statue of David by Michelangelo that used to stand in the Piazza della Signoria in Florence and was finally replaced by a replica. Would you claim that photos of the original statue of David when it was standing in that piazza should be deleted? Is the length that a statue stood a relevant consideration? Although maybe that's a bad example because it would no longer be under copyright. But let's say it was and Italy had FoP (so a counter-factual, but nevertheless for the sake of discussion). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote "COM:FOP#Permanent vs temporary" here:
  • The exhibited objects must be exhibited in a permanent way. If a work is presented on a public place temporarily, one may be obliged to get the explicit permission to take its picture.
  • Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent".
  • A sculpture is typically placed with the intent of leaving it for an indefinite time. But if it was clear from the beginning that it would be left there only, say, for three years and then be moved to a museum, then the placement was not "permanent". On the other hand, if a sculpture was placed with the intent of leaving it "open end", but is then removed due to new construction plans some time later, its placement remains "permanent" even if the sculpture is eventually removed.
  • Even quickly decaying works can thus be "permanent" and therefore be subject to freedom of panorama. Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same. But if, for instance, an ice sculpture is exhibited only for a few hours and then moved to cold storage, it may not be permanently placed. (See also archived discussion of 09/2013).
If we were to apply the idea that any removed work retroactively loses its status as a permanent work then nothing is permanent because the universe will end and even before that the planet Earth is projected to be destroyed in about 7.590.000.000 years, so technically speaking nothing is permanent. What matters here is the intent and if the work was originally meant to be permanent (in the legal sense) then it fully satisfies Hong Kong's Free of Panorama laws. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the artist explicitly relinquished their copyright on the work. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/kultur/dansk-kunstner-bag-fjernet-skulptur-i-hongkong-ophaever-copyrighten-efter-storm-af ResultingConstant (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And let's look at this:
A sculpture is typically placed with the intent of leaving it for an indefinite time. But if it was clear from the beginning that it would be left there only, say, for three years and then be moved to a museum, then the placement was not "permanent". On the other hand, if a sculpture was placed with the intent of leaving it "open end", but is then removed due to new construction plans some time later, its placement remains "permanent" even if the sculpture is eventually removed.
What if it was placed with the intent of leaving it for an indefinite time and it was forcibly removed, along with the demonstrators, by a despotic government? That seems pretty well analogous to being left open-ended and removed due to new construction plans (or, well, destruction plans). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The permanent criterion in freedom of panorama laws usually means that if something was put up in public space with the intent of leaving it there for an undefined period of time, it is installed permanently. Else one could always speculate about a possible future destruction by a natural disaster or war or simply about a removal by future governments, rendering the whole concept of permanence pointless. I don't see any evidence that this is different in Hong Kong. --Rosenzweig τ 17:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Pillar_of_Shame_(Hong_Kong)&oldid=693484637"