Commons:Deletion requests/File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.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.
Freedom_of_panorama#Netherlands mentions "drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture, lithographs, engravings and the likes", but not photographs. Beside, it is unclear if this is permanent. The image comes from A Clockwork Orange (film), a British movie by Stanley Kubrick, made in 1971, so it is copyrighted. AFAIK, the only DR kept about 2D art in Netherlands is Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wekeromse Zand Plattegrond GL.jpg. Let's have a discussion. Yann (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep - The subject of this image is the skyline of Amsterdam. The poster is copyrighted and likely not covered by com:FOP. However it is not the main subject of the image, it is a small part of the image and therefor I believe that this file is DM. The photographer didnot upload this image because of the poster, he uploaded it as a panoramaphoto of the skyline. The poster is just a small detail and not really in focus. Natuur12 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)- Keep - This is a picture with buildings of Amsterdam-North at the IJ. A panormaphoto of this buildings belongs to the freedom of panorama in the Netherlands. The poster on one of the buildings is a detail in the photo that is imo de minimis. Gouwenaar (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment I don't think it is de minimis, but it may be seen as permanent: the image is not moved elsewhere after it is removed from there. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- That is not a correct interpretation of Dutch law. Whether or not the work is moved elsewhere after it is removed is irrelevant. The question is: is the work intended to be placed there permanently or indefinitely? The answer in this case is provided by the work itself: it advertises an exhibition which lasts from the 21st of June to the 9th of September of 2012, after which one can expect the advertisement has been removed. It is therefore not covered by the freedom of panorama. I am also inclined to disagree with you when it comes to de minimis. I believe the poster is of minor importance compared to the whole, both in terms of quantity (the amount of space it occupies) and quality. Woodcutterty (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yann, I wonder how we can consider it as "permanent" even though it may not reused in another place when removed. Unlike Graffiti which are created as "original work", here the photograph is used as a derivative of a copyrighted work. So we can't keep this if it will not fall under de minimis, I afraid. Jee 03:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I am not sure. To me, there is a similarity with a short-lived sculpture. If we can keep a sand sculpture, why not this? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because the photograph used in the poster has a life of its own and wasn't created on site like graffiti /sand sculptures. It was recorded, making it firm and surpassing location tied existence. - Vera (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, this makes sense. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because the photograph used in the poster has a life of its own and wasn't created on site like graffiti /sand sculptures. It was recorded, making it firm and surpassing location tied existence. - Vera (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I am not sure. To me, there is a similarity with a short-lived sculpture. If we can keep a sand sculpture, why not this? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, per Natuur12 and Gouwenaar. This is a skyline image covered by FOP-NL, the poster is merely a detail. Wutsje 17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a panorama and the poster is derivative.--Wikiwal (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your remark makes no sense. Yes the buildings are FOP and the poster is derivative, that's why it needs to be deleted / altered. - Vera (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, the poster seems to me main object of the photo. Probably it is not meant so, but it is the first, where my eye stops. So it is not de minimis for me. Taivo (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I have learned something here and will make the appropriate notes at COM:FOP. Dutch FOP, at Article 18, does not include photographs -- it explicitly calls out Article 10, paragraph 1, item 6 which is "drawings, paintings, works of architecture and sculpture,lithographs, engravings, and the like". Photographs are listed separately in Article 10 paragraph 1, item 9, and therefore are not included in FOP. see http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please elaborate, seeing as no one has invoked freedom of panorama as regards to the poster, instead appealing to de minimis. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yann, Taivo, Wikiwal, and I all believe that de minimis does not apply. Please remember that in order for something to be de minimis, it must be of so little consequence that its removal would not be noticed. That is a different standard from the "main subject" standard in place in some countries, but not here. While we can argue over whether the poster is the main subject, it certainly is the first or second thing your eye goes to and cannot be removed without people noticing it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. My problem with the way you handled this deletion request was that you did not address the appeal to de minimis, instead focusing on an exception nobody invoked. Although I do not agree with your strict interpretion of de minimis (certainly not an interpretation that is prevalent in Dutch legal literature), I can definitely see this is a grey area and one can disagree on the outcome (meaning I won't request undeletion). Regards, Woodcutterty (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- A remarkable discussion, this picture with the poster as a detail was not acceptable, and a similar picture with the poster as a prominent part is obviously not a problem. Gouwenaar (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are more than 20 million files on Commons and we add more than ten thousand every day. Why should it surprise you that we have not found all the problems? My best guess is that 1% of all Commons file, more than 200,000, are a problem for one reason or another. When you find a problem, rather than using as a bad example, please tag it for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- A remarkable discussion, this picture with the poster as a detail was not acceptable, and a similar picture with the poster as a prominent part is obviously not a problem. Gouwenaar (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. My problem with the way you handled this deletion request was that you did not address the appeal to de minimis, instead focusing on an exception nobody invoked. Although I do not agree with your strict interpretion of de minimis (certainly not an interpretation that is prevalent in Dutch legal literature), I can definitely see this is a grey area and one can disagree on the outcome (meaning I won't request undeletion). Regards, Woodcutterty (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yann, Taivo, Wikiwal, and I all believe that de minimis does not apply. Please remember that in order for something to be de minimis, it must be of so little consequence that its removal would not be noticed. That is a different standard from the "main subject" standard in place in some countries, but not here. While we can argue over whether the poster is the main subject, it certainly is the first or second thing your eye goes to and cannot be removed without people noticing it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
