Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quba Mosque

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.

Files in Category:Quba Mosque

[edit]

This mosque is an architecture and not an applied art (as opposed to claims made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MQuba 091109-0146.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Masjid al-Quba.jpg). The architect who designed this modern incarnation of the mosque, Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil (1943–), is alive. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Saudi Arabia has no Commons-applicable FoP.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


--Ashashyou (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashashyou: but do the country, via its copyright law, allow publications of images of copyrighted works from architecture to sculptures in commercial media like post cards, T-shirt prints, and commercial YouTube vlogs, without permission from the creators or royalty payments to the creators of those works? This is the essence of FOP, an exception to copyright that permits free commercial photography and free, unrestricted reuses of images of copyrighted works such as architecture and sculptures without the need of authorization and acquiring of license from the creators (the architects, sculptors, etc.). Since Saudi Arabia has no FOP, permission from Architect Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil (not the owner nor the government) is a must to have images of his architectural work, this new incarnation of Quba Mosque, released on Commons under free licensing or public domain licensing (i.e. non-traditional licensing). Otherwise, Saudi Wikipedians must lobby their legislature to have FOP provision inserted in their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think having no FOP does not mean that panorama photos are forbidden. It is clear, photos are allowed in Saudi public places unless "no photo sign" is put. Not all countries has FOP direct permission in the laws. Things does not work in the same manner in all countries. For example, i think Egypt does not have an FOP permission stated clearly in its laws as far as i know. Perhaps with time, all countries will adopt more clear terminology. I think allowing photos in public places include panoramas in Saudi Arabia. regards.--Ashashyou (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashashyou: unless the architect requests Wikimedia Commons to remove images of his works without his explicit authorization on the site. According to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle this should be prevented in the first place. If one sculptor had did this before (see this letter addressed by the camp of Claes Oldenburg to Wikimedia) which prompted the removal of hundreds of Commons images of his sculptures in countries that do not have FOP for 3D sculptural works like the United States, then perhaps the architects like El-Wakil (who is still living) can impose such requests. For Egypt, see COM:FOP Egypt. It has more liberal copyright laws that permit freely and commercial-friendly licensing of images of copyrighted architecture and sculptures. Off-wiki, one friend of mine who was my former schoolmate said that Paris' Louvre Pyramid is indeed a copyrighted work of art by the now-deceased I.M. Pei (d. 2019), and this implies every architecture designed by people who are either still alive or have died recently can be copyright-protected. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One way to resolve this is to contact the architect for permission. This is his last known contact (the gmail is probably the most reliable). I would do it if I wasn't inactive on Wikipedia in general, so just leaving it here as a suggestion. Shipmaster (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here is whether architecture is an applied art under Saudi Arabian law, see COM:SAUDI ARABIA#General rules. In the two earlier DRs linked at the beginning of this DR, Prioryman asserted that architecture is an applied art. The English Wikipedia Applied arts article says that architecture is classified both as a fine art and an applied art, but I haven't found a reliable source with a clear answer. The relevant law is presumably written in Arabic, and the meaning of the term used in the Arabic text may be different from the meaning of 'applied art' in English. Several entries in Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted are for architecture, but those deletion decisions may be for buildings under 25 years old, or they may have overlooked this rule. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If architecture is an applied art then these should be kept. The current Quba Mosque was built in 1984, and items of applied art become public domain in Saudi Arabia after 25 years. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Quba_Mosque&oldid=579384046"