Commons:Deletion requests/Le Corbusier artwork

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.
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 2px solid #777; background-color: #F1F1DE;"

|- |

  • Add {{Delete}} on the image page
  • Notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|Le Corbusier artwork}}-~~~~
  • On the log, add:
    {{Commons:Deletion requests/Le Corbusier artwork}}

|}

Le Corbusier artwork

[edit]

Artist Le Corbusier died in 1965. Thus non of his designs is in the public domain yet. Only if COM:FOP applies, pictures of his work can be put on Commons. For the following list FOP does not apply. -- Cecil (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]




Can see artwork in some images, don't see any in others. Especially those where Corbusier was a team collaborator contributing engineering design principles (non copyrightable) while exterior finishes were handled by other architects and/or severely altered in later periods. Case-by-case only (or a plain ban on all XX century buildings). NVO (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no freedom of panorama in France, neither for sculptures, nor for buildings that pass the threshold of originality. And this only applies for buildings in France (and Italy too). -- Cecil (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me laugh ! As Le Corbu is a well known architect, all of his works are categorized in very obvious categories. But, if I understand what you mean, 90% of the photos taken in cities of France should be deleted because they contain part of buildings erected in the past 70 years ! --Pymouss Tchatcher - 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between making a special building the central motive of a picture and making a picture of a city (that's why it is possible to keep pictures of the eiffel tower at night, because in a few the tower was not the central motive but just part of a skyline; same with the pyramide in front of the Louve), and there is a still the threshold of originality, but the Le Corbussier category had only a few images of french buildings that did not meet that threshold. -- Cecil (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand correctly this threshold affair, it's just because I naïvely categorized Image:Rezé centre.jpg in the correct categories that this picture describing the centre of the town of Rezé is RfD. I'm sorry to announce you that this building is huge enough to be seen in every panoramic picture you'll take in this town ! But anyway, because of the stupidity of French law, I will take picture of non representative view of the town to illustrate this article ! --Pymouss Tchatcher - 21:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. I would have sworn that there were two images of Reze, where the building was the central motive, but looking at this one now, it obviously is not the case with this one. I removed the deletion request from it and will check that category again tomorrow to find the second one. Must have been the wrong tab. -- Cecil (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable, this discussion. To my opinion, reading the notices, written about the license, photo's taken from 3D-objects, has their own autentic value (this differs from paintings!). So a photograph of buildings (like :[Image:Eglise saint-pierre DSCF1665.JPG] should not be requested for deletion. So, a license discussion like 'this is in the public domain because the architect is dead or not dead since ...' is not the right discussion. The discussion should be: is this a 3D-object and has the photographer added an artistic value to the object, for example, he took special attention to the point of view, the (sun)light, and so on. When I read earlier discussions about this; all of the pictures of dimensional art is an new creation. So the discussion should be: has the original photographer released his product/photgraph under a certain license (GNU/CC/double license), then it is right. Corbusier has nothing to do about that. If these pictures (in case of 3D-objects) really disappears, a very disastrous and negative precedent should be created with an enormous impact. Again the note "Artist Le Corbusier died in 1965. Thus non of his designs is in the public domain yet." seems to be right, but is not valid in this discussion; when we talk about photographs (of 3D-objects, objects of a certain artist/architect), we talk about the (license) of the work of the photographer, not about the work of the artist/architect!. Nijeholt, 9-7-2008 [1]
The artistic value by the photographer is not the content of this discussion. The photographers can make pictures of whatever they want wherever they want if they can handle the consequences it will have at some places (e.g. military areas). But as long as their motive is protected by copyright they are not allowed to use those images commercially without permission by the copyright owner and/or his heirs. And Commons only accepts pictures that are totally free, which is not the case. And just to see how extreme those cases can get: At the European Court of Justice they were debating a case of Le Corbusier only a few month ago. A german trade-company was using copys of chairs designed by Le Corbusier for there shop-windows (they had imported the chairs from Italy where the law was different) without permission of the company who has the exclusive distribution right for Germany. The trade-company finally became right, because they just temporarilly used the furniture and did not distribute it to the public by sale. In the case of all the pictures above the law of France (there is no freedom of panorama in France, neither for sculptures, nor for buildings that pass the threshold of originality) and for a few of 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.) applies. So as long as all those photographers are not willing to ask the copyright holder for permission to commercially use the images, we will have to wait until the artworks get public domain (which in this case will be 2035). -- Cecil (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. There's no Freedom of Panorama in France or in Commonwealth of Independent States (former USSR). Kimsə (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Le_Corbusier_artwork&oldid=577855416"