Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Viaduc de Millau

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:Viaduc de Millau 1

[edit]

Various Milau Viaduct photos where the viaduct is clearly the subject and focus of the image, thus failing COM:DM.

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mattbuck: , Have you seen [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama&oldid=256272743 my edit on this very subject]? I have been trying to understand why the English have so much difficulty with a simple French law? Probably because the French do too- and it is not that simple. The law seems to be moving, based on developments of case law. WP is erring on the side of caution when it makes a bland statement stating there is no FOP- and we need to use the American concept of DM in whether to allow or not allow an image.

  1. Firstly an error of translation- this viaduc is a civil engineering work Ouvrage d'Art not a Work of Art.
  2. The draughtsman or his employer holds copyright on the 2D drawings, and the concept if it is original and has never been used before. He does not hold copyright on any concept that is a concept because it is a good technical solution (or a design inspired as the only technical solution to a project, his copyright is on the ćreative decisions he has taken within group of technical possibilities. The onus of proof lies on the designer to convince a court that he holds a copyright that has been breached.
  3. If it accepted that the draughtsman has designed something truly original then photographs are not permitted of that work in its entirity or photographs of the entirity of the actual section of the work that was deemed to be creative. Photographs of parts of the work that have been used before on other structures can be used.
  4. Au Millau, all of it has been done before- conceivably the only artistic decision that can be copyrighted is the relative heights and number of the pylons and their shape above the bridge deck. Below the deck, the deck, each individual pylon the play of light caused by a parabolic curve are all common engineering solutions so cannot be copyrighted. If copyright was ever claimed the architect, would still have to prove that there were other viable engineering solutions and his solution was more than a consequence of engineering necessity.
  5. To prevent publication, there is another test that must be fulfilled and it is not DM- more the question could the desired photograph have been taken without including the civil engineering structure. This gives us virtually the same freedom as FOP.

I apologise for not giving you references for all the case law/ It is essential to read the judgements in French- as American synopses miss all the nuances. So lets look at all the beautiful photographs and make some comments:

The Case law is growing, and I think we should reflect it in our decisions- ann then revisit other deletions File:Millau7641.JPG and File:2005 MillauPéage0416.JPG which quotes the Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gare Lorraine TGV deletions and reversions. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: Actually I would like to read the judgements (or at least an article about them in the French press) to make my mind on these ones. If you say that Commons guidelines are not enough, you must provide an alternative. I can read French, so there are no problems I presume. --Ruthven (msg) 22:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: While bridges are not copyrighted in the USA, they are in France. The fact that cable stayed bridges have been built before does not mean that cable stayed bridges cannot have a copyright. Glass fronted skyscrapers all have copyrights, although they all are similar to prior works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:Viaduc de Millau 2

[edit]

No acceptable FOP in France. None of the images nominated here pass French de minimis; the viaduct forms an important element to each of these images. See also the prior nomination above and also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Viaduc de Millau.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the implementor of Architect Lord Norman Foster's copyright holder-ship (the management) has placed some authentic restrictions over any forms of reuses of images of this bridge: [1] Perhaps night scenes of the bridge (which I haven't yet nominated) might need to be deleted too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Viaduc de Millau 3

[edit]

Per the CEVM's house rules on usages of any visual representations, even drawings are not allowed if they will be reused commercially (without permission from CEVM who acts as the "guardian" of architect Norman Foster's copyright). This means graphical renderings of this bridge are not OK per their rules in relation to French copyright law. Furthermore, no freedom of panorama in France.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Viaduc de Millau 4

[edit]

5 images of the viaduct at night, and 4 images of the viaduct at the "borderline of foreground and background". No FOP in France, the bridge's management is aggressive in protecting Architect Norman Foster's copyright over the bridge, and see the above nominations. While the 4 images are borderline between foreground and background, the main intent of those images are the viaduct itself (as evidenced by their file titles). COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle applies for this case.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Viaduc de Millau 5

[edit]

No FOP in France. Designed by Michel Virlogeux and Norman Foster, both are still living. The Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau is clear that only non-commercial images are permitted without royalty payments. See: https://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en/rules-use-images-viaduct.

Labattblueboy (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment My very limited understanding was that photos which don't have the copyrighted structure as their primary focus, but merely in the background as some of these do, are legal. But I couldn't name or quote the relevant law. Anyone else with more expertise?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See ClemRutter's comment above. We'd however need some more clarification on the law and jurisprudence. –LPfi (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Das Foto File:00 0238 Millau - Viaduc de Millau.jpg zeigt die Stadt Millau vom Standort östlich der Stadt an der „Route du Causse Noir“. Aus dieser Blickrichtung auf die Stadt kommt in einem Bildfeld zur Aufnahme des gesamten Stadtareals zwangsläufig der „Viaduc de Millau“ in die Aufnahme. Beabsichtigt war nicht eine Aufnahme des Viadukts, sondern das Stadtbild. Ob in diesem Falle eine Verletzung des Urheberrechts vorliegt, zweifle ich an. Mit freundlichen Grüßen W. Bulach
The photo file: 00 0238 Millau - Viaduc de Millau.jpg shows the city of Millau from the location east of the city on the "Route du Causse Noir". From this direction of view of the city, the “Viaduc de Millau” inevitably appears in an image field to capture the entire city area. The intention was not to record the viaduct, but the cityscape. I doubt whether there is a violation of copyright in this case. Sincerely, W. Bulach W. Bulach (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a precautionary approach, I do question whether in image File:00 0238 Millau - Viaduc de Millau.jpg the bridge is unintentional and simply background. Compositionally the bridge's location in the image follows the rule of thirds and contains the entire bridge length. The image could also be cropped (at the bridge deck) without deleting the image of the city. As noted in the nomination a cautionary stance is necessary as the copyright holder has expressly stated that royalties are required for commerical images.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour. Et désolé, je ne suis pas doué en anglais. Ma photo File:Tarn Comprégnac Peyre amont.jpg est l'une des 51 photos que j'ai prise ce jour-là à Peyre (Aveyron) et déposées sur commons. Lorsque je visite un lieu, je prends un maximum de photos, notamment des cours d'eau, vers l'amont comme vers l'aval. J'ai donc pris le Tarn (sujet principal) vers l'amont et vers l'aval. Il se trouve que vers l'amont, au fond, il y a un petit morceau du viaduc de Millau qui apparait, représentant environ 5 % de la photo. Donc, pour moi, vouloir la supprimer pour ce motif est clairement un abus. Pour précision, j'étais en vacances à Millau pour une semaine et des photos beaucoup plus précises du viaduc, j'en en fait quelques dizaines, mais je n'en ai déversé aucune sur commons. Père Igor (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've retracted the nomination for File:Tarn Comprégnac Peyre amont.jpg. I agree that the bridge composes a minor attribute of the background.-Labattblueboy (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just now - maybe too late - I realized that I should give my statement about deletion request of my file. "Driving on the Viaduc de Millau.jpg" at this place. Actually I put it at my Discussion side as follows: 

   Hello user Labattblueboy,
   thank you for the check on my file "Driving ...". Yet I oppose the result in form of the deletion request. As you can see in in the version history of the file, there was a deletion request in February 2021 that finally got cancelled by User:Racconish with his remarkː "On second thought, I think my deletion was excessive. Just leave the file as it is and good luck for the challenge". I had argumented that the topic of the picture was not the construction of the bridge itself but the impression of driving on a bridge towards the dark clouds of a thunderstorm contrasted by the cables high lighted by the sun. The name of the bridge is just mentioned to tell the location where the picture was taken.
   Best regards Foeniz (Diskussion) 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I do hope this stil may have any influence on the decision process. Best regardsFoeniz (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it would help, I would not mind to change the file name to "Driving on a cable-stayed bridge".Foeniz (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Driving on the Viaduc de Millau.jpg is a lovely photo. That said, the bridge is not a de minimis feature in the photo. I understand the intent but there is no indication that bridge's copyright holders would consider this image being in the public domain.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Labattblueboy: one of the files has an active DR started by me on July 2021: Commons:Deletion requests/File:PM 037802 F Millau.jpg. Please be mindful of initiating mass DRs next time; you can see a file with an active DR having a "d" with rectangular orange background designation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, discussion, previous discussions on this DR page. --Rosenzweig τ 14:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry about this decision. Especially as it contradicts the earlier decision by User:Racconish that made me hope for some time. Besides this personal event: I do appreciate your engagement in Commons. Best regardsFoeniz (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Viaduc de Millau 6

[edit]

The bridge is the main subject here, and it is most probably covered by copyright.

Yann (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Tallest Bridge might be OK. File:AVEYRON.Viaduc de Millau-1-cliche Jean Weber.jpg is definitely not OK; File:Millau Viaduct (42509428741).jpg is a bunch of extraneous people sitting in front of the bridge, also not OK; I think File:Rob Bell by the Milau Viaduct in the South of France.jpg may be OK because he is the subject, but that's open to question. If he were not himself in scope, that photo definitely would not be OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and nominee by other user, because Yann has a personal prejudices against me. Matlin (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all photos but  Keep one. File:Rob Bell by the Milau Viaduct in the South of France.jpg can simply be censored by cropping the whole bridge away and turning it into a portrait picture. Reference to this discussion is encouraged on the file description page so that no one will wrongfully nominate it (there is a tendency that once cropped, the indications of his selfie action will disappear along with the bridge). For others, I do not see those as passing de minimis. File:Tallest Bridge. (6744815357).jpg may be a close call but I'm uncomfortable at having a 50/50 photo (50% main subject, 50% de minimis) that may lead to Wikimedia being slapped with French lawsuits from CEVM, the management who is Architect Foster's beneficiary of his property rights over the public landmark he designed. Note the descriptions and title suggesting the bridge as the real intent of the photo. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Info "File:Tallest Bridge..." seems to be a reupload of File:Viaduc de Millau. (6744815357).jpg, deleted through this deletion request page too. See the file title's log. Therefore, it is eligible for speedy deletion as reupload of deleted content deleted through a consensus. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if this DR isn't happened, the last one may be G4-able. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From all of the above views,  Keep the Rob Bell one and  Delete the rest 3, this looks like another propaganda of Yann on their selection of {{De minimis}} applications. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - Rob Bell image cropped and old version hidden. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Viaduc_de_Millau&oldid=800356090"