Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Greece–Bosnia and Herzegovina Friendship Building

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:Greece–Bosnia and Herzegovina Friendship Building

[edit]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. 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 freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I'm looking into exceptions at https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/227216:
  • Article 44 (Informing the Public) might be adequate for photographs of the building during the en:Bosnian War i.e. in its damaged state?
  • Article 52 (Works Permanently Located in Public Places) might be adequate for all of these photographs since the building is located in a place accessible by the public, is not being reproduced in three-dimensional form or for gaining economic advantage.
I'll try look more into exceptions if these are not adequate. –Vipz (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz Commons does not accept content that reusers cannot exploit for economic advantage.  Delete, Bosnian FOP, for non-commercial use of public space works only, does not conform to COM:Licensing which requires commercial use without architects and artists' permissions for photos of copyrighted public space works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever commercializes Commons content, or whoever this right is reserved for, really did the entire rest of the Wikimedia community a huge disfavor. –Vipz (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz: I don't think so. Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikimedia Commons, is supposed to uphold free culture values — where anyone in the world can freely share, distribute, and use media files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I won't argue over this here, but I want to note that you didn't object to my invocation of article 44, which does not have an NC restriction. –Vipz (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz: "informing the public" is analogous to "for informatory purposes only", disallowing commercial or for-profit use. So still B&H legal rights are  Not OK for Commons. Any content in which reuses in postcards, commercial travel portal sites, stamps, souvenir items, calendar designs, and commercial vlogs without artists' permissions are prohibited is not permitted on Commons. A reform in B&H law to finally accept free culture uses for their architecture and public art would finally permit Commons to host photos here, and to undelete/restore to public view dozens of previously deleted files from B&H. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On whom is the responsibility to transfer such files to local Wikipedias (as if fair use)? Editors who happen to randomly notice such deletions on-going and happen to care about the images? –Vipz (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned numerous times before, Wikimedia Commons has interpreted the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina incorrectly when it comes to Freedom of Panorama. In Bosnia and Herzegovina there is Freedom of Panorama. Google has interpreted the same law correctly, and that's why Google Street View is available in Bosnia and Herzegovina. You can check that for yourselves at the following link. Please stop this nonsense with deleting photos, and restore those ones already deleted. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8556234,18.4037062,3a,75y,132.91h,94.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAF1QipPzhMYlwZhnbqvUEKQCWhxfynWYOkllQtqRMLlp!2e10!7i5760!8i2880?entry=ttu My-wiki-photos (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per above --Pudelek (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@My-wiki-photos Commons interpretation is correct, the law must be changed to remove restrictions on gaining economic advantage for Wikimedia to finally host photos of copyrighted works of your country. Google Street View imagery is allowed because Street View images are not freely-licensed or commercially-licensed in the first place; therefore, there is unintentional protection for architects and artists of public space works of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Unintentional but complying with restrictive law of B&H. Twofold protection brought by unfree GSV imagery: protection of Alphabet Inc.'s copyright over GSV imagery as well as protection of artists/architects' copyrights over any copyrighted works appearing on GSV imagery. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 Your comment has missed my point. Here is why. Let me explain, so please bear with me and read this carefully. Alphabet (Google) is the largest commercial/for profit company on the internet. The more internet traffic it gets, the more commercially successful it is. It's the nature of its business. Google's lawyers have studied the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They have concluded that THERE IS FREEDOM OF PANORAMA in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore Google has created its own Google Street View imagery, and posted it online in order to attract more internet traffic and by doing so to gain an economic advantage. In other words, Google Street View has been created and posted for Google's commercial purposes. The license under which Google has published their imagery is for the sole protection of the ownership of its own imagery, nothing else. If there was No Freedom of Panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Google itself would be in violation of the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since there is Freedom of Panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Google is not in any violation and it's free to publish its own street imagery for its commercial purposes under any license it prefers. I trust this clarifies the matter.  Keep My-wiki-photos (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, @My-wiki-photos: . Freedom of panorama is more on reusers. You are not allowed to commercially reuse GSV imagery because the imagery is copyrighted and not under commercial Creative Commons licensing. Because of this, there is some form of protection for architects and artists from exploitation by the public. The context of freedom of panorama as it applies for Commons is that you (or other reusers) are free to exploit public space artworks like using your or other Wikimedians' photos in post cards, souvenir items, stamps, and other commercial merchandise, without payment of royalties to architects and artists.
Can you cite a source, research paper, or online article claiming that Alphabet Inc. concluded there is commercial freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina? If there is, can you present it to COM:Village pump/Copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google is using that imagery commercially, which is not allowed per se, I assume. But any copyrighted work is de minimis in Google Streetview. I assume that's the base for them being able to have such a project in countries with restricted FoP. LPfi (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • some belated comment regarding GSV: @LPfi: , perhaps Google makes profit over their content, but their content are not de minimis. This also applies to YouTube which is also owned by them. But, they are not sharply criticized by ADAGP (from France) and other societies of visual artists and architects, because they pay royalties to the said societies. YT has a 2010 agreement with ADAGP and SACD, in which the platform gives royalties in exchange for artworks and buildings the YouTubers present in their YT content. That is per ADAGP's claim in their presentation to the EU Parliament in 2015 that sharply rebukes Wikipedia community (they do not treat Wikipedia and Wikimedia as distinct communities). I assume that GSV, being under Google too, has similar artwork and architectural licensing arrangements with ADAGP and others for the display of non-de minimis GSV imageries of public buildings and monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not an expert on the GSV issue, but I assume the imagery includes a lot of de minimis works. However, my main argument was about those images that depicted the fire, or otherwise something else than the building itself (as main subject). –LPfi (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Category:Undelete in 2045, assuming the building was a "collective work" and "the lawful disclosure" of the building was when it was completed in 1974 (according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bosnia and Herzegovina#General rules and en:Greece–Bosnia and Herzegovina Friendship Building). Images of the fire and of trams should probably be deleted at once, as no argument was made above about whether de minimis applies. Some of the images were quite recent, and I don't know whether some of them included features introduced in 2006. –LPfi (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Greece–Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_Friendship_Building&oldid=866182250"