Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pgallert

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 uploaded by Pgallert (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No FOP in Namibia

Elisfkc (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination for File:Deadvlei2.jpg, since it is not a building & does not include a building anywhere. Elisfkc (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination for File:Berseba church, plaque 02.jpg, since I already nominated it. Elisfkc (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: With maybe the exception of File:Berseba church, plaque 01.jpg I cannot identify any works of art in these pictures. One could argue that buildings like File:Sanderburg.jpg and the several churches are themselves works of art, but here, due to the age of the buildings, all possible rights have expired. --Pgallert (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pgallert: When were they built, who was the architect, and when did they die? Unless you can answer all of those and prove that it is past Nambiba's copyright length, then it can stay. Otherwise, per COM:PCP & Freedom of Panorama (which is the copyright of a building), it should be deleted. Elisfkc (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc: Thanks for your response. There is no "an artistic work, other than a photograph" in most of these pictures. School buildings are not artistic work. PO Boxes are not artistic work. Farm gates are not artistic work. Not even in Namibia. I have annotated the pictures above. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pgallert, your comment above is incorrect. Most of your individual comments are also incorrect. I have looked through some of them, and I see only one work that did not have a copyright, although it may have expired in many cases. The Namibian law is very clear. Among works covered are:
"artistic work" means, irrespective of its artistic quality-
(a)...
(b) a work of architecture, being either a building or a model of a building; or
Therefore, as in the USA, all buildings, however small, have or had a copyright. As you say, some of them are long out of copyright. Also, all text has or had a copyright, so at least one of the plaques above is under copyright unless the author died more than fifty years ago. That period is extended if the first publication was posthumous. The several complex gate structures also have copyrights, either as buildings (in at least one case) or as sculpture, in other cases. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Namibian law is very clear indeed but you didn't read far enough, Jameslwoodward. Further down in the law you quote we find:

"In addition to reproductions permitted in terms of this Act reproduction of a work shall also be permitted in such circumstances as are prescribed, but in such a manner that the reproduction is not in conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and is not unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright."

IANAL but if you ask me the "normal exploitation" of a church is to go and pray there, of a farm gate, to keep animals in or out, of a school building to conduct classes, and so on. This applies to all of the pictures, not just one or two. So when I said above XXX is not art, read it in a way like The purpose of this is not to be exhibited, admired, and have its meaning discussed by spectators, but a lot more mundane. The "legitimate interests of the owner of the copyright", in the case of standard buildings like offices, bars, walls, dams, and the like, is to get paid for their work and move on. Nobody would claim that you cannot design a 3-bedroom house of certain dimensions if someone else designed one before you. The ordinary way of exploiting a residential building is to live in it, not to take pictures of it.
Essentially your reading of our law would mean that as long as there is a structure on a picture that is built by humans, no matter how incidental, small or trivial, no picture of it could be published in any way. How do you think Namibians produce TV and newspapers? By taking everyone out into the desert? --Pgallert (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fear I need to add a tldr; version: The normal exploitation of a photograph is to view it. The normal exploitation of a building is to use it. These two ways of exploitation are different, do not conflict, and are therefore explicitly permitted in Namibian law. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, although we don't have many cases from Namibia, similar language appears in copyright law everywhere. You are focusing on the interests of the owner of the work, but copyright law protects the interests of the creator. In each case, the creator retains the right to exploit the work -- so that an architectural design copyright covers not only putting up the structure, but also the ability to sell photographs of the structure once it is built. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not talking about everywhere, we're talking about the law in Namibia. You have selectively quoted one fragment of Namibian legislation that seems to suggest taking photos is not allowed. I have selectively quoted another fragment that shows it is allowed. Nowhere in Namibian law will you find that taking pictures of ordinary buildings conflicts with the normal exploitation of the creator's work. It is you who is wrong, not me, so please drop the stick. --Pgallert (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pgallert (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No FOP in Ghana

Elisfkc (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: No artworks in the first two pictures. The third picture does not show any artworks permanently placed on public display, as the reproduced paintings most definitely are long sold, so I don't see the FOP issue there. --Pgallert (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pgallert: When was it built, who was the architect, and when did they die? Unless you can answer all of those and prove that it is past Ghana's copyright length, then it can stay. Otherwise, per COM:PCP & Freedom of Panorama (which is the copyright of a building), it should be deleted. Elisfkc (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc: Could it be that you did not read my comment? --Pgallert (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pgallert: Buildings are considered art, as they are the work of architects. Elisfkc (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc: I'm not contesting File:Holy Spirit Cathedral, Accra.jpg. The "building" in File:Traditional healer stand in Accra.jpg is most definitely not the work of an architect, and File:Holy Spirit Cathedral, Accra-information.jpg does not depict any building. --Pgallert (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted these per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not fight the fight for Ghana. I don't know their laws. But I find it surprising that you would delete "per nom" when the nom has been refuted for two of the three pictures. --Pgallert (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, your comment above is dead wrong on all three items. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you would not bother to point out what is wrong with them. I get it. --Pgallert (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do get tired of trying to educate with someone who argues about law that is completely and solidly established. You may not like it, you may not understand it, but it is the law.
The first one above has a copyright for the symbol in the upper left. The second is clearly modern architecture and your photograph infringes on the architect's copyright. The third, you have the concept of FOP backwards -- the only things that are free to photograph in some countries (but not Ghana and Namibia) are things that are permanently on public display, see COM:FOP. In 61 countries, including Ghana and Namibia, there is no FOP, so you cannot upload images of work with copyrights to Commons. That includes any architectural work, no matter how small or inartistic. So, in the third, your photograph infringes on the copyright to each of the paintings shown in the photo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted about half of these. I think there is a real question of whether all of the ones I kept are in scope, but that should be a separate DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Restored a big part of these, as per [1]. Yann (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Pgallert&oldid=554479334"