Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Russian Chapel on the Vršič Pass

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:Russian Chapel on the Vršič Pass

[edit]

These photos of an orphan architectural work unfortunately do not meet COM:FOP Slovenia. They will become eligible for Commons in 2036 (= 1916 + 120 as per the cut-off date).

TadejM (t/p) 01:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that’s {{PD-Slovenia}}. Brianjd (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain the creator of the plans was known to the builders. However, I couldn't find their name mentioned nowhere in the relevant literature that I consulted some time ago. --TadejM (t/p) 14:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenian copyright protection until 2036 can only apply to the image: c:File:Ruski vojni ujetniki in Avstro-ogrski stražarji pred Ruska kapelico.jpg - This copyright protection cannot apply to all the other photos of the chapel, because then you would no longer be able to upload photos of buildings in Slovenia.--SchiDD (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the argument since you cannot upload the photos of buildings here in any case, as long as the buildings stay copyrighted in Slovenia. --TadejM (t/p) 17:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. This was constructed by a bunch of prisoners during wartime. I've looked extensively and I can find no evidence of a listed architect. For such anonymous works, Slovenian law starts the 70 year clock at the time of public disclosure. That would be 1916. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This makes not an anonymous work, but an orphan work. "A bunch of prisoners" sounds unnecesarily condescending and does not actually bring any new information about the copyright status. Per our policies (COM:AW), anonymous works are only counted as such if there is clear evidence about the deliberate anonymous publication and "claims of the anonymity of an author must be verifiable with reliable sources.". For other works, the cut-off period of 120 years applies if the author is unknown. --TadejM (t/p) 14:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it brings new information. You didn't mention the fact in your nomination. I resent your insinuation that I'm somehow trying to diminish the work that the prisoners did and it feels like you're trying to deflect from your own omission of this key information. Your statement about anonymous publication having to be a deliberate choice of anonymity (e.g., a book published by "Anonymous" in big red letters on the cover) is just not true and a clear misrepresentation of policy. Many (if not most) orphan works are also anonymous. Now some jurisdictions don't treat anonymous works differently, but some (including Slovenia) do. It is common sense to take claims of anonymity with a healthy dose of skepticism. Many works which seem anonymous really weren't and authorship can be investigated and determined. Here, however, every fact of the case suggests that no reasonable (or unreasonable) inquiry will be able to uncover who the architect is. It may not even have a clear architect. As a chapel built by POWs (and yes, their prisoner status is relevant) they may have simply copied the design of chapels they knew from home in Russia. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IronGargoyle, thank you for clarifying that. Well, I don't think big red letters are required for a work to be considered anonymous, but the policy states two things: 1) claims of the anonymity of an author must be verifiable with reliable sources; 2) deliberate intent: "Works that do not immediately cite attribution to an author are not automatically 'anonymous'. it is typically not correct to assume an author has intended anonymity."
I agree that it would be difficult or impossible who is the architect here. However, there certainly was somebody as otherwise this building would not be erected. I don't think, however, that copyright status depends on whether the author is a POW.
In regarding to this building being a replica, we consider only exact 2D replicas of 2D works devoid of copyright, otherwise a new copyright is created. Even if it truly were an exact replica (there is no information that it would be), the author of the original work in Russia (or Ukraine) may still hold their own copyright. --TadejM (t/p) 09:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per IronGargoyle: imho this can be considered as an anonymous work, as the architect has not come forward since the building of the church,so it can be maintained per COM:FOP Slovenia. --Ellywa (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Russian_Chapel_on_the_Vršič_Pass&oldid=753787952"