Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Venice - Railway station.jpg
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.
Please provide architect and building year. The building looks not older than 70 years, in such a case it would be a copyvio. --User:G.dallorto 16:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep just a station building, as there are 1000s on wikipedia. Are you gonna nominate all Belgium stations too? Michiel1972 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)- Keep This is a photo of a place not a copyrighted design. I suppose you'd prevent me from uploading a picture of my house if I lived in Italy?: -Nard 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment No COM:FOP freedom of panorama in Italy. Not sure the extent to which public buildings in Italy would be exempted from copyright. Do we have any kind of precedent deletion argument one way or the other ? Megapixie 06:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)- Comment
- User:Michiel1972 : please refer to this WikiCommons page: Commons:Freedom of panorama. I quote a passage from it: "Belgium. There is no panorama freedom in Belgium. The modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photographs without permission of the artwork copyright holder. The Belgian copyright act (in French The Belgian copyright act (in Dutch). Since WikiCommons only accepts images whose commercial use be possible, you can give by yourself an answer to the question you ask me. However, I am not going to nominate anything, since I am patrolling Italian pictures, not Belgian ones, and I can assure you I have enough trouble with this work alone.
- User:N : Of course I would, in case you lived in a building designed by a famous architect (and of course not, in case you lived in a plain house not considered a creative work of art, for instance a cubic bloc designed by an engineer as a derivative development from an already existing model). Contrary to what you seem to think, in fact, copyright on a building is owned by the architect, not by the owner (or dweller), and such a rule applies also to statues, sculptures, paintings, mosaics, reliefs and so on. The copyright on the painting "Guernica" by Picasso is NOT hold by the Prado Museum, which materially owns the paintings (and could well sell it, if they only wanted), but by the heirs of Pablo Picasso. And so on. You may dislike it, but such is the law. I suggest you would profit from a little reading of copyright laws. Don't bully me, I am against such laws, otherwise I would not donate to Commons my pictures. Fight for their repeal instead. But until we succeed, we have to respect them, at least here. Regardless of how stupid they may seem.
- User:Megapixie : as an example see for instance (but there are several more examples of it) Category:Stazione Cadorna in Milan. It was revamped a few years ago by living architect Gae Aulenti, therefore the images (scores of them, including mine :-( ) had to go, helas. Of course the merely industrial parts of the station are still there. Industrial objects/buildings can be patented, but not copyrighted. This is why we have hundreds of industrial buildings used as railway stations, and nobody asks for deletion. But the station in Venice, it was clearly designed by an architect (not by a mere engineer) after WW2, so we need to know either the name or the date to decide whether we can keep it. This is why I asked.
- Furthermore, not only I could not find to date any rules exempting public buildings from copyright laws in Italy, but things work quite the opposite way: the Italian State issued a few years ago a (fascist) law (please refer to the "Legge Urbani sui beni culturali") barring the reproduction of works of art who are in the PD already, whenever they are owned by the Italian state. it:Wikipedia was threatened to be brought on court should they not delete all images about State-owned art objects in Florence and Rome (which include, for instance, Michelangelo's David: I hope everybody can grasp what it implies...).
- I hope the situation is a bit clearer now. For further hints, please refer to the post I put in the bar a few days ago, here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#A_few_news_about_copyright_laws_in_Italy and to the discussion pages (in Italian) in the Italian Wikipedia debating this hot issue, which I can assure you is creating a lot of troubles not only for this mere picture we are discussing about... --User:G.dallorto 19:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
According to this site, the building was built in the 1950s, so this fails to be free. Deleting. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
