Commons:Deletion requests/Whitehouse Moscow

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.

Whitehouse Moscow

[edit]

These are images of architecturial works of en:Dmitry Chechulin, who died in 1981. There is no FOP in Russia ([1]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([2]). Should be category "Undelete in 2052/56". --Fernrohr (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The freedom of panorama is basically given, so saying "there is no FOP in russia" is simply wrong (Article 1276): "Reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable shall be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder consent or payment of royalties, of photographic work, work of architecture or visual art, that permanently standed in places of public resort..."
The interpretation from "except where .. the work is used in commercial purposes", that because of a CC licence all pics of russian buildings have to be removed from Commons, is very special and IMO questionable. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. As NVO wrote on Fernrohr's talk page: A policy is in place but there's no commitment. None. [...] practically anything built in the Union fails COM:FOP in this or that way. It's a five-digit mass of photos. Current "consensus" is to disregard COM:FOP in this case: no one really cares about legalese crap fabricated in Russia or North Korea. [...] Can this simple statement lead to a summary deletion of all photography in the Union-related categories? (accentuation by me) - yes, it can, if you go ahead deleting stuff like this, resulting in Wikimedia Commons becoming virtually useless for illustrating articles about Russia and/or or the Soviet Union (which occupied 1/6 of the Earth's land area). Change this policy right now because of common sense and the nullo actore, nullus iudex principle, and stop deletions at least until this point is clarified! And BTW, we do not need administrators implementing "commons policies" acting like robots not considering any issues around, like the mentioned above... --SibFreak (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody will sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Your interpretation is based on an automatic (babelfish) translation of the russian law, right? And you come here and try to teach us (latin) lessons in law? Did someone ever tell you that law is not a mathematical algorithm?
See also: User_talk:Fernrohr#Erst_Bild_ansehen.2C_dann_LA_bitte --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, my interpretaton is based on the two references mentioned in my nomination. The answer to your third question is yes. I happen to be a lawyer. --Fernrohr (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyer seeking to broaden his perspective on international law ... fascinating. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The user Fernrohr is nothing but a menace to Wikimedia. This is incredibly absurd and action needs to be taken to stop the abuse of Deletion Requests. Administrator Jameslwoodward is also complicit in enabling these abuses and DOING THE ACTUAL DELETIONS. Deleted files include pictures of Lenin's Mausoleum, The Kremlin, and other PUBLIC buildings in the Russian Federation. This kind of near robotic, bureaucratic lunacy is not only counter-intuitive and counter-productive, but defies common sense completely! 72.208.97.129 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete All complain should be addressed to parlament of Russian Federation. Or ask permissions from architect heirs. Until law is changed, Commons should follow it. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Are we going to illustrate Russia or not? Artem Karimov (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Before submitting and executing this and other deletions, you must read Russian Civil Code. And please do not mix two different rights - for photo/panorama and for piece of architecture.

RCC 1276 Public accessible product usage freedom 1) the photo is not sold 2) the main purpose is to illustrate the article. Jeshev (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read COM:L and understand that the restriction “the photo is not sold” is the problem, i.e. we accept only media where commercial use is permitted. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, so there's no images that could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in Russia unless its author granted full permission. Maybe anyone should state that those images shall be located outside Wikimedia Commons? Jeshev
We'd better change Commons' policy regarding commercial use... Why should the majority of users that only read Wikipedia, or use it for educational, or other private purposes care about a few people's "need" to use those pics commercially?! --Amga (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not permitted on Commons, yet. Hekerui (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you consider "not permitted", and why? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content that does not conform with our requirements for free content including the possibility of commercial use (which I realize you questioned above). Hekerui (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, based on which sources do you derive this conclusion? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Licensing. Are you trying to make a point or are you sincere? Hekerui (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am really interested to know where you found a qualified translation of the russian law in question - or maybe you are savvy in russian legal language yourself? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trusted the translation at COM:FOP. If you think it's incorrectly translated, please raise that as an issue. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is only a translation of a part of the law, not the court cases, not the russian legal comments. Thin ice IMHO to wash all pictures of public places or buildings out of Commons. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the former Soviet Union. Kameraad Pjotr 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Whitehouse_Moscow&oldid=135838778"