Commons:Deletion requests/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG

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.

File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG

COM:DW; this would require permission by the artists; see http://www.jankaeser.ch/index.php?id=31 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for a cancellation. The camera location was on public property in Switzerland, and the balloon was in the Austrian airspace. The artist obviously puts emphasis on publication, otherwise he would not allow his work to fly through the air. --Böhringer (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright protection is for works that people have access to; art that remains locked up in the artist's studio does not need it. This work does not fall in the exceptions for works "permanently situated".  Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 21:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the image was not nominated for speedy deletion, which to me means that deletion of the image is not given, and there's something to discuss and to vote "for" or "against", so I voted to keep the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, yes, but I guess your vote was not random, was it? As you said, there is something to discuss, and I'm trying to figure out what makes you (and Böhringer) think that just because it's published, it's free. Understanding opposite arguments is the key to building a consensus and reaching an enlightened conclusion. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the arguments that the image's creator Böhringer has provided and agreed with him.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. FOP in Switzerland. Yann (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG

Renominating, as COM:FOP#Switzerland only applies to works of art that are permanently situated. The law text even says that it must be on the ground, on the soil: (German: "Ein Werk, das sich bleibend an oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet...", Italian: "un’opera che, in modo permanente, sia situata o si affacci su suolo accessibile al pubblico...") - not in the air. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not only permanently situated, but also on the ground: Il est licite de reproduire des oeuvres se trouvant à demeure sur une voie ou une place accessible au public [1]; which means It is legal to reproduce works permanently situated on a publicly accessible way or place.  Delete. –Tryphon☂ 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have the three national languages covered... –Tryphon☂ 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as not permanently situated as required by COM:FOP#Switzerland. If, as has been suggested, the balloon was actually in Austrian airspace at the time then COM:FOP#Austria is probably relevant but that doesn't seem to permit this either. The previous arguments to keep this image seem limited to the "artist obviously puts emphasis on publication, otherwise he would not allow his work to fly through the air" but that is less than convincing. Adambro (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about asking the artist for permission? His mail address is readily available. I like the photograph and I hope the artist agrees with keeping it on Commons. --Iotatau (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Iotatau--Mbz1 (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Kaeser describes himself as "Kunstschaffender" - producer of art, artist. On the page that I linked to in the first DR he states: "alle auf diesen Seiten gezeigten Werke und Fotografien sind urheberrechtlich geschützt" - all works shown on the page are protected by copyright. He signed this appeal against copyright infringement on the internet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Simonxag meant w:UFO --Mbz1 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case we would need to know about copyright on the alien planet. ;) Seriously though, this has not much similarity to a usual balloon, thus I think sufficient originality has been reached to warrant protection. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if the creator styles himself an artist, then in the world of en:An Oak Tree it must be art. So  Delete. --Simonxag (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll email the artist.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I emailed the artist and got his response (his phone numbers, address and emai address removed by me to post here):

Dear Mila
It's OK! Thank you.
Jan

__________________________________________________________

Jan Kaeser
Harfenbergstrasse **
CH-**** St.Gallen
Schweiz
T/F **** ** *** ** **
M **** ** *** ** **
E-Mail **** at ********* dot ch
Web http://www.jankaeser.ch


Am 12.10.2009 17:53 Uhr schrieb "Mila Zinkova" unter

Dear Jan,
an image of your balloon was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG
The image was nominated for the deletion because the image has
a free creative Commons license, while your balloon is copyrighted.
Here's the link to the description of the license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
Please email me, if it is OK with you to keep the image on Commons.
Thank you for your time.
Mila.


IMO that excange should be enough to issue the ticket and keep the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I just got another emial from Jan. Here it is:

"Dear Mila
The question of copyright arises here only for the photo. The copyright must
be obtained from the photographer of this picture, in a lengthy publication.
the copyright of the balloon itself is with us. For example, it prohibits
one Dublikation.
Regards Jan"
Now I am not sure , if it is OK to keep the image or it is not.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment January wrote:

The copyright of the image remains with the photographer. The copyright of the balloon stays with Jan He has given no objection to Veröffentlichnug of the photo. For me, this heiist, which may in photo equipment in different WIKIMEDIA!

Many, Many thanks to the work of Mila --Böhringer (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Made by professional artist. No real application for transport. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you if this was just a simple balloon, but this is way more creative than the average and thus IMHO definitely reaches the threshold of originality. Just because it still flies, doesn't mean it is only applied art and not copyrightable. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG&oldid=34200566"