Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tromostovje

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:Tromostovje

[edit]

The Triple Bridge and the embankments of the Ljubljanica in the centre of Ljubljana are work of the architect Jože Plečnik, who died in 1957. They will become public domain only in 2028. The Prešeren Statue, depicted in some images, is work of Ivan Zajec, who died in 1952. His work will become public domain in 2023. See COM:FOP#Slovenia.

Eleassar (t/p) 12:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You have added all the images in the category (again), including the photos that don't contain a threshold of originality or fall under De minimis... --Sporti (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list the ones that you believe are de minimis or do not pass the threshold of originality? Mind that not only the bridge but also the embankments are an author's work of Plečnik and therefore copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say at least these: File:Under the Tripple Bridge.jpg, File:VidGajsek - Kanu v Ljubljanici.jpg, File:SLO-Ljubljana46.JPG, File:Lublana 125-2.jpg, File:Ljubljana2 095.JPG, File:Ljubljana2 058.JPG, File:Ljubljana Tromostovje.JPG, File:Ljubljana Stadtzentrum 01.jpg, File:Ljubljana Prešeren Square snow.JPG, File:LJ Prešernov trg 1.JPG, File:Kresija-Ljubljana.JPG, File:FilipovDvorec-Ljubljana.JPG.--Sporti (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kresija-Ljubljana.JPG and File:FilipovDvorec-Ljubljana.JPG are problematic because they show more of Plečnik's work than would be unavoidable and the first one also shows recognisable faces. File:Under the Tripple Bridge.jpg shows a photo of water reflection of copyrighted works, which I believe is a kind of reproduction of Plečnik's architecture, even if the upper part of the image is trimmed to show only the 1842 part of the bridge. In all of the others, the Triple Bridge, the embankments, Plečnik Arcades, and Prešeren Monument feature prominently and I can't say it's not a deliberate inclusion. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know on what kind of trip you are. Following your interpretation of the law it would not be possible to shoot any picture at Tromostovje. This is certainly not the intention of the lawmaker. Show us jurisdiction for this before doing further harm to this encyclopedia. These pictures are here for many years. Are there any legal problems or is it just your personal feeling and your own interpretation of law? --Peter Lauppert (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not my own interpretation of the law. It is written e.g. in this expert article. It reads: "to reproduce a work (to photograph it, record it, draw it...)" [delo reproducirati (fotografirati, posneti, narisati,...)] and "Reproductions also shall not be used to gain economic benefits (e.g. by printing postcards depicting the work)." [Prav tako se reprodukcij ne sme uporabiti za doseganje premoženjskih koristi (npr. s tiskanjem razglednic, na katerih je delo upodobljeno)]." See also here. It's not true that it is not allowed to shoot photos of Tromostovje, you're free to do so. It's just that they shall not be used for economic gain, which means they're ineligible for Commons. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this. Per the cited article, countries for a long time hesitated to acknowledge copyright to architectural works, particularly bridges, roads and canals. It is possible that these older architectural works were already in the public domain on 29 April 1995, when the new copyright act became valid in Slovenia. In this case, they would be free.(per [1], pg. 14). This has to be proven of course, otherwise the listed files should be deleted, per COM:EVID. I don't have access right now to the previous acts (also cited in this last reference), but I'll try to get them when I have time. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only problem. There is a couple more. I have talked to the author of the cited article, a student. She is very kind and she was not sure about this. She offered to provide further information. She told me that this slovenian law is derived form the austrian and german law. There you are allowed to publish these pictures. So if it is not clear, let the slovenian courts do the job. After their decision we can remove the slovenian national heritage from our archives. Remember it was a lot of work for wikipedians to collect all this what you are destroying now. Please think about this before starting mass deletion requests.--Peter Lauppert (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry if this work was in vain, but this does not make Commons policies invalid and per them, only copyright-free content can be published here (with some minor well-defined exceptions). The burden of proof regarding this is on the uploader. You have to provide clear evidence (exact citations) that the work you have uploaded is free, not just some rumours. For now, I can't say that COM:FOP#Slovenia differs in any way from e.g. COM:FOP#Montenegro, COM:FOP#Bosnia and Herzegovina and some others, which are also not suitable for Commons.
I appreciate the work of other editors, therefore I've currently stepped back from further requests. This is only because the source cited above (dLib treatise) states on pg. 14 that the works that were public domain in 1995 have not been protected again with this new act. We have to verify whether the general 70-year term applied by previous acts for architecture too, but that's all. If it did, these nominated works are non-free; if the architecture was exempt in previous acts or a shorter term applied, then some older files can stay. For now, all we know is that the freedom of the usage of these works (i.e. the freedom of all these files) is dubious, and per COM:PRP, "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, as you speak Slovenian, could you possibly try and dig up the old act, or ask for assistance from other Slovene editors. And possibly drop me a note on my talk if you have any success; I was going to close this off, but I think we can leave it open for a while longer in order to give people the time to access relevant information (i.e. I would hate to delete them all, only to have to undelete at a later date...let's get it right the first time). Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree. As said above I'll try to do so. In the meantime, I can offer the diploma thesis of the author of the article cited above (Saša Krajnc), specifically mentioning Tromostovje as covered by the 55th article of the currently valid Slovenian copyright act (non-commercial FOP only).(pg. 40, Article 55) --Eleassar (t/p) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of the Yugoslav 1978 act is available e.g. here and possibly also elsewhere. We have to verify it and also need older acts. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Architectural works were placed among works of visual arts and were protected for 50 years after the death of the author according to the 1978 act. I'll try to get access to older works in the following week; however, even if architecture was protected for only 25 years in 1957, the Triple Bridge will remain copyrighted until 2028. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose.DancingPhilosopher (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason? --Eleassar (t/p) 21:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose, at least for files where the bridge elements are insignificant part of the picture, such as File:Kresija-Ljubljana.JPG and File:FilipovDvorec-Ljubljana.JPG. As for the above discussion, I think it'd be useful to enlist help of a local copyright law expert. Is it possible to get funds for such a thing from the Foundation? — Yerpo Eh? 06:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think de minimis (entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph) applies here. Filipov dvorec (Phillip Manor) can be photographed from the middle bridge in full and without any distracting element of the bridge visible; we don't therefore need this image with unclear status. Kresija Palace can also be photographed so that 1) the full front facade is visible 2) the Triple Bridge is not visible. Image quality is not a reason for deletion, copyright is. As said above, both images are also contentious because they show identifiable people, which AFAIK is not allowable in Slovenia for commercial purpose.[2][3] I don't think another local copyright law expert would tell us something different (the opinion of Mrs. Krajnc who specialises in the architecture-related copyright law has already been presented above), but if you want you may contact one (like http://www.uil-sipo.si/). --Eleassar (t/p) 07:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De minimis refers to a particular image, not all the potential images from all the potential angles (which would be silly because then you wouldn't need a de minimis at all - for every subject there exists an angle at which no copyrighted parts of another work are visible). Secondly, non-copyright restrictions are not a keep/delete isssue in Commons. Users can be informed about them with appropriate templates. — Yerpo Eh? 08:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: With the "useful to enlist help of a local copyright law expert", I meant the newly-surfaced issue that the copyright term extenstion might not apply retroactively to works whose copyright has already expired previously (mrs. Kranjc's article doesn't say anything about that). — Yerpo Eh? 09:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding de minimis, I agree, but what I stated at first place and is important as to this request was that I don't think the depiction of the Triple is "entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph"; I have only supported my opinion with the further description of the situation (layout). The fact that the copyright extension does not apply retroactively in Slovenia for works that were public domain in 1995 is stated in [4], pg. 14 (as stated above). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the depiction of the bridge is entirely incidental, especially in the second example. The first example can simply be cropped to remove the lower 1/8th or so of the image (which would also conveniently remove the identifiable living person issue). As for the copyright extension, I realized that it would probably still cover Plečnik's works because in 1995, the 50-year term didn't yet expire, unfortunately. — Yerpo Eh? 09:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Kresija Palace could probably be cropped just above the top part of the arcades above the Ljubljanica. I've uploaded a cropped photo now.[5] I could agree to the possibility that the image of Phillip Mansion meets the de minimis criteria. When I have time and the weather will be right, I'll upload new photos showing more of the palaces and less of copyrighted works. The 1978 act (link provided here) placed architectural works among works of visual arts, with the term of expiry 50 years after the death of the author. I don't have access to the 1957 act right now (will try to get it), but even if it protected architectural works for only 25 years p.m.a., Tromostovje will be copyrighted until 2028. It's interesting to note that the 1978 Yugoslav act did allow for commercial exploitation of works at public places (Article 48). --Eleassar (t/p) 10:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the 1957 act today at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana. It also protected works that were public domain already (according to the previous act, passed in 1946), if less than 50 years had passed since the author's death (see the dLib ref above, pg. 19). It gave the copyright protection of 50 years p.m.a. to architectural works. Because the Triple Bridge was still protected in 1995, when the copyright was extended to 70 years p.m.a. for the works still protected, the files listed above can be used only for non-economic purposes until 2028 according to the currently valid Slovene act and must be therefore deleted from Commons until then. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a curiosity, the 1930 Drava Banovina act is available at http://www.sistory.si/publikacije/prenos/?urn=SISTORY:ID:182 (24/1930). The works of architecture were protected as copyrighted for 50 years. It allowed only for non-commercial FOP. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even more surprising, the 1895 copyright act valid in Austria is available at Commons! It protected "Pläne und Entwürfe für architektonische Arbeiten" (plans and drafts for architectural works); however, "Die Werke der Baukunst sind jedoch ausgenommen."[6] (The works of civil engineering are excluded). The plan of the Triple Bridge was drawn in 1929, when it was protected by the 1895 Austrian act. The building itself was built in 1931-32, and was therefore protected by the 1929 Yugoslav act. This means that the images listed above must still be deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per Eleassar, can you please explain your position on the interpretation provided. Thus far, as I have read, Eleassar's interpretation is valid, and if there is some error, an admin who is closing this (who could be me in 24 hours) will need to know exactly where it is invalid. russavia (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: As per arguments by User:Eleassar; thanks for that research. Any images which are DM i will not be deleting, and this will be noted next to each image in this list. russavia (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Later found and deleted:

--Eleassar (t/p) 13:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Tromostovje&oldid=105405457"