Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bjørn Nørgaard

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:Bjørn Nørgaard

Unfortunately, you can't take photos of sculptures in Denmark unless the sculptor has been dead for at least 70 years, and da:Bjørn Nørgaard is still alive.

Stefan4 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most. However if File:Kapel til nutiden.jpg is a building we can keep that because there is freedom of panorama for buildings. --MGA73 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This website http://skulpturer.randers.dk/FrontEnd.aspx?id=27284 has a small description: "The multicoloured sculpture is decorated with glazed bricks. The spiral shaped tower rises in a curling fashion over the stairwell leading to the subterranean interior of the sculpture and is reminiscent of the Tower of Babel from The Old Testament. The interior acts as a place for reflection and silence in the middle of the vibrant city life, and it is therefore recommended to use plenty of time to experience the sculpture.

Note: The sculpture is locked; the key can be borrowed at Cykelbørsen, on the corner of Adelgade and Vestervold."

So there is a door (that can be locked), stairs and a room where you can stay. Building? I would say yes. --MGA73 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it says that it is a "skulptur". I was wondering about this and about the tower in Høje Taastrup. Can a work be both a building and an artwork at the same time? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tower of the Sun in Osaka.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tower in Høje Taastrup is nothing like a building. There is no doors and no solid walls. So there is no way to keep that without a permission or as de minimis.

As for the "Tower of the Sun" it seems to me that the copyright laws of Japan are not as clear as the one in Denmark. Danish law says "Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public.". No exceptions of any kind. So I doubt it will be a problem. --MGA73 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the Japanese law is a bit different, saying something like this: "If it is an artwork, it may only be used non-commercially." So I suppose that if it is both a building and an artwork at the same time, then it's fine if it is in Denmark but not if it is in Japan. The Randers object seems to have some kind of door, so I suppose it's fine. There is Commons:Deletion requests/File:KlaksvíkRelief.jpg which was deleted, but on the other hand the photo focused on the artistic details and not on the architectural details, which might make a difference.

I've never been to Høje Taastrup nor seen the real tower (it's one of those places which I only know by name since all trains stop there), but it does indeed not seem to have walls or doors, so I suppose that there's no chance in keeping it. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of File:Thors-Taarn Hoje-Taastrup.jpg and included it as a panorama, but it's probably/surely not a building (but actually called a "Tower", so it's something like a building, and actually there is no rule, that there have to be doors or windows in a building), but the tower might be too central in the photo, so I totally accept your verdict, ... good evening ... --Moeng (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thors Tower is an object of sculptural art work, but it is definately also a building - it's made of building materials, you can walk inside where you will find paintings on the wall. I find it important to define it as a building - not because of the photos - but to ensure that we do not impose more restrictions on ourselves than necessary. If we do not ensure that, we risk end up in a situation where other kind of buildings could also be characterized firstly as sculptures, and secondly as buildings. Keep that in mind, and define the works firstly as a building (with freedom of panorama) and secondly as an art object. A lot of buildings are sculptural, just think of ex. Bella Sky, but firstly they are buildings ... I wish you all a good day ... --Moeng (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per above. File:Kapel til nutiden.jpg has been kept as a building. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]