Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Viaduc de Millau

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.

Images of Viaduc de Millau

[edit]

(Edit: Images that were not listed in this DR but are also concerned.) Esby (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Edit Note: The following images seems to be covered by exceptions to the copyright (the viaduc in itself not necessarily being the main subject.) Esby (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those images could be possibly kept under Template:FoP-France. ( Esby (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

debate

[edit]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in France. The architect Norman Foster is still alive and thus his work copyrighted. In the listed images the bridge is "the main represented or handled subject". Therefore these images are derivative works and must be deleted. We had a similar mass deletion request regarding that topic already. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the above images are mine- please feel free to delete them in accordance with French law. However, do not delete the category as it contains a subcategory Category:Aire du Viaduc de Millau that would be orphaned. In this case, would a letter to Norman Foster be appropriate to ask him to permit the derivatives, which only glorify his achievement. A letter to the worlds greatest architect from the worlds greatest encyclopedia? Foster and Partners must be aware of, and approve of the photos by OT-Millau in the Aveyron Tourist Literature. A warning should be posted on the Category:Viaduc de Millau. Would you give your opinion on this display board-Image:Millau7641.JPG I feel it is borderline but maybe it is falls on the wrong side! ClemRutter (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre, frankly. I'm sure public works of art are copyrighted too but that doesn't extend to photos modern monuments (or buildings) in Paris. How can a bridge be copyrighted anyway? Surely only building a copy of that bridge would infringe copyright - it isn't a logo. Sarah777 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning buildings, case law (CA Riom, 26 mai 1967) recognizes two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" («un caractère artistique certain») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. First criterium does not apply, viaduc Millau has not "a definite artistic character". Moreover - it is an infrastructural instalation, not an artistic building.  Keep all pictures. Julo (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This is pov to find or not "artistic character" to the Viaduc of Millau. Norman Foster has reselled exclusive right to commercialize the image of the Viaduc to Eiffage Company. Eiffage is doing business with the image (Post card, Pictures...) IMHO, we are not in position to go to court to validate if the viaduc has or not "artistic character". - Zil (d) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really strange. It's a cable-stayed bridge like many, many others, only a bit taller ... But it seems we have to delete the pictures. Or should we ask Eiffage company, if we can keep the pictures? Mike Switzerland (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. In my opinion, there is not that much artistic value in this bridge... But, if you read this article in French, it is stated that Eiffage start to do legal process to remove non-authorized pictures... If it has been to court, we would have a clear statement about the artistic value of the bridge. But we don't have it. - Zil (d) 10:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be good idea to ask Eiffage, if we would get an acceptation for one or two pictures... Dont fight for twenty (or 27), if we could have a hope and chance for two. Julo (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A chance would mean allowing fair use for the photographs, that would mean that Commons can't host the images but that the local wikis might be able to host these thanks to the fairuse exceptions (either fairuse for en or fairuse architest for fr)... (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [edited 09:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
  •  Keep, let us not act ridiculous.
This ain't paranoia but the the french law. Architect works are protected by french copyright law (author's right). For the same reason, we can't host most of the images of the BNF, which need deletions regulary. The utilitary argument is nice but not likely going to work as buildings have an utilitary aspect and are still copyrighted. To me, the difference is that you are allowed to take a photograph of the viaduc of Millau to illustrate an exemple of a cable-stayed bridge, but if you are depicting the viaduc for its unicity (placement, impact on the landscape, highest of Europe), refering it as 'the Viaduc of Millau' then the utilitary argument stops working. Esby (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to change the guidelines

[edit]

I see no chance to keep the images under the current guidelines. But why not change them and let Commons ignore french law? At least for the cases where the author of the image is a citizen of a country which knows freedom of panorama? As our servers stay in the US i can't see a danger here. OK there is Wikimedia France but they are not responsible for servers and content so it might be useless for Eiffage to sue them. --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For that to work, technically speaking, that would need to forbid the content violating the french law to french users. Esby (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or to use a general rule: The image must be free in the country where the server stays AND in the current country of residence of the image's author. But not necessarily in all other countries... --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No,(a more longer answer) the french law is applyable on the american servers if the content distributed is illegal in France. The same goes for nazi symbols being hosted to german ips. Esby (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean ignore the en:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works ? Teofilo (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Freedom of Panorama in France Check COM:FOP#France ... The Louvre pyramide is the perfect example. The BNF buildings are another one. The Eiffel tower by night (lighting) another one... The Montparnasse tower might be the same...Esby (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to start ignoring national laws then why not just pay to have the servers moved to Sealand and then ignore all of the laws. Jokes aside we cannot just pick and mix between the laws that we choose to follow either we follow only US laws (in which case we should rename ourselves en.wiki) or we go for source country and US. /Lokal_Profil 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The servers of the German Wikipedia are also located in Florida, and the Wikipedia accepts French copyrighted buildings. If a Polish creator (Poland has FOP) goes for a French court (France: no FOP) because Commons shows his sculpture erected in Germany (Germany: FOP) he will win the case. In the European Union all creators have the right that they are treated in a foreign country (if its belongs to the European Union) like the national citizen. If the Server argument would count the clear consequence must be No FOP in Europe.

Polling isn't evil. Let us fight for a free Commons and change guidelines that FOP is accepted on Commons worldwide --Historiograf (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make Commons more free? Surely it makes it less free if osme of the images aren't even free in their source country. If you wan't to strike a blow for freedom then convince the french government to adopt FOP. /Lokal_Profil 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom starts in your mind. The images are free in 95% of the countries worldwide including the authors and the servers location. So let's consider them free. Google does the same [1]. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hosting illegal images does not make them Free. If something is protected by copyright law, then you can't release a free image of it. Releasing an image to any licence when you don't have the rights to perform this action is not the proper way to do things... Esby (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment includes several mistakes: If something is protected ... The question here is where it is protected. You'll always find a place on earth where the things you like to do are forbidden. If you take those places as a benchmark you are the most unfree person that is possible. ...when you don't have the rights to perform this action ... You take the easy way out here. Where do you know that I don't have a right to publish a picture of this bridge e.g. in Germany or Switzerland? --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Berne convention? What does me being an unfree person has to do with the discussion? Commons is supposed to host medias that are under a free licence. Here, the entity known as Eiffage is claiming copyright for this bridge, so technically the images are not free. (Like for characters coming from an anime are not free even when they are fanart.) Of course, there is a very low risk to host those images, but since commons can only host free materials, the images can't be here. Now Of course, if you manage to move the bridge to Germany or any place in where FOP does exist, you'll be able to photography it and publish these photographs under a free licence. Esby (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol! The fact that somebody claims a copyright in whatever country doesn't mean they have one! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still that does not make the image free. I doubt you will warrant any user that the image is free while Eiffage is filling legal action against the ones who tries to make any commercial usage with it. I guess you could say the Image is free for non commercial usage, but again, that would go against Commons guidelines. Esby (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between the image Image:Wiadukt Millau.jpg showing a landscape with an ordinary bridge and Image:Viaduc de Millau August2005 Fahrbahnhoehe.JPG with a detail. And look at the picture Image:FR-12-Viaduc de Millau1.JPG without this title it could be anywhere in the world. I think there was a judgement lately concerning the outside of a house in France build by an architect and the pictures were alowed. But I can't find it. Traumrune (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in your example, the bridge could be considered as de minimis, still it is limit, the bridge can still be considered as the main subject. For the judgement, I think you are mixing two cases, The 'Place des Terreaux' one, which allow to make photographs with copyrighted content if they are not the main subject of the photograph, and a case about an house where the inhabitants could not forbid the commercial use of the photo of their house. Please note that the second case is different, inhabitants of an house don't get any copyrgiht related to the house they inhabit, only the architect that build it, if there is one get it. About the bridge focus photograph, I don't know. Esby (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move the images to your local Wikipedias!

[edit]

It looks like just a minority supports my suggestion to change the guidelines so the pictures risk being deleted. You forget that my suggestion is already the well established current guideline in some Wikipedias like de.wikipedia. See the guidelines here and here.

That's why I moved two of the best images to German Wikipedia and added the {{NoCommons}} tag. Feel free to do so for the rest of the images. I'd be glad to hear which other wikipedias also accept the pictures. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fr does accept fair use for architect works... - Zil (d) 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I did sign under IP, it was me not on my main PC. forgot to check my signature.[reply]
It looks like it's one of the best solution we can find. (The best would be Eiffage allowing those image usage, but I somehow doubt they will). I never forgot that your suggestion is used on other wikis (at least, on 'en', on 'de' also, and partially on 'fr'), but still Commons was created as a free image repositery. If you suggest that Commons should ignore the laws and such, you are sure to fail in supporting any guidelines changes. The best technical compromise would be to accept fair use on Commons under some condition, still it would go against the spirit under which Commons was created. Esby (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even the French Wikipedia's guidelines allow the images! Looks like we are trying to be more Catholic than the Pope on Commons. I can live with the fair use clause but right now I do not see the difference between fair use and my suggestion to ignore the French FOP paragraph. --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: fair use is legal; ignoring the law is not. Rama (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not simple at all: Fair use is a term of US copyright which does not exist in French copyright law. What would the application of US fair use mean in our case? License the pictures under GFDL and putting a tag below "you may not reuse the image in France"? Or making a "for encyclopedias only" license which applies worldwide? --Ikiwaner (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question here, neither of the two, "Fair use" does not allow to use a gfdl licence. It is used when you can't use gfdl or any other free licence because of the derivative work issue. "Fair Use" supposes the image can be reused under "Fair Use" (and not under a free licence). For this case, I think Eiffage would not care about non-commercial usage, now they'll probably sue anyone who tries to make a commercial usage without making an agreement with them. Technically the images that are hosted on fr under 'Fair Use architect" are usually photographs for which nobody is claiming their copyright publically. To be totally safe, there should be OTRS tickets allowing the usage on Wikipedia. Also technically, If I remember well fair use is only valid for small resolution and such now I ain't a specialist about "Fair Use". Esby (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep because this is picture of the Millau valley. You can't take any pictures of the valley anymore without the bridge occupant the scenery! Use:

France Warning sign

Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright.

This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in France. There are limited Freedom of Panorama exemptions in France, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than non-commercial purposes. However, French jurisprudence states that no infringement is constituted when the work is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject".

If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.

Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information.
Deutsch ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ русский ∙ 한국어 ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hogne (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be true if you were photographying the valley and not the Bridge, now I'd agree that a few pictures could be kept under this argument. (I think there are one full panorama of the valley in this DR.) Esby (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, compare this to this . Can't you just remove the deletion tag on the pictures with the bridge covering less than 50 % of the scenery? For pictures like this the French law seems to apply, I must sadly admit. :=( Hogne (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep These pictures are indeed copyrighted, but not for the reasons done above (such as the non freedom of panorama!!), and the holder of these rights is not Norman Foster, the architect, but "la Compagnie Eiffage" (in association with Norman Foster), the firm which built this bridge. In fact these pictures can be used freely for any action of promoting of the bridge or the region or about the bridges. But it can't be used in a commercial use such as in a book. All details of these rights are here. In the case of Wikipedia, I think that the pictures can be used in an article as soon as the mention “© Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau – Foster and partners – name of photograph” is writen in the description in Commons and if there is a link towards this site and this contract on which al users can have a sight on the conditions of use.Roulex 45 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the invoked restriction would make the images out of common scope, (We don't allow images on Commons only for non commercial usage - The best solution might be still to move the image to the common wikis (or delete them if nobody move them before a given date.) Esby (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PS: I took the liberty of putting the {keep} at the same level like the others ones.[reply]
All depends on the main purpose followed in Commons : is it to make an encyclopedia well illustrated or is it to distribute pictures for all usages, included commercial uses? I think that in that case we could have an evolution of the rule, written in the marble, which says that pictures have to be usable for commercial uses. We could have pictures with the mention of copyright clearly written. I precise that one year ago I had called the director of public relations of The Compagnie Eiffage and had exposed the problem. The answer (oral, not written), was that there was no problem as soon as there was no commercial use, and that all was precised in the contract of copyrighting. If the pictures of the Millau viaduct in Commons had been a problem, we should have had already a letter demanding to keep them off WP.Roulex 45 (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete To reply to the discussion right above, hosting pictures —but with a non-commercial clause— is exactly the same as uploading them to local Wikipedia, since, (for all photos I presume?) they were taken by a French photograph, the French law thus apply to them. It says that FOP can't be invoked. →Diti the penguin — 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

[edit]

I commented earlier, but the debate has moved on and I feel justified to make a few further comments.

  • All photographers are French. No I have two images and hold hold a British Passport, other contributers originally posted on nl:wikipedia so I assume are Dutch/Vlaams.
  • Each image must be considered individually.
  • Moving the image to a local wikipedia and display under fair use- having done that for some image on :en:wiki- each would require a fair use statement and fulfill 10 conditions- one being that the photo could not be replicated, and the second to prove it was actually used on a en:wiki main space page where it was integral to the article. Hardly possible.
  • French case law makes an exception that I believe that many of these images pass- but many don't. This is the test.
Case law traditionally admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus, ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:
Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public
Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):
Can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief, and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens—but used as an element of the setting (« Constitue une représentation illicite d'une statue de Maillol la diffusion d'un film publicitaire dans laquelle elle figure, alors qu'elle a été utilisée, non pas dans une séquence tournée en décor naturel, ce qui justifierait une apparition fugace de la sculpture, placée dans le jardin des Tuileries, totalement accessoire au sujet traité, mais comme un élément du décor. »).
  • Put together it seems that it is legitimate to include the viaduct in an image, if the main subject couldn't be taken without including the viaduct.
  • If this test can be met it seem prudent to {{FoP-France}}, otherwise French law is clear. What is not clear to me is how we apply this law, in a manner that is consistent with French custom and practice- which is very different and less absolute that the Dutch/Anglo Saxon/ Nordic manner.
--ClemRutter (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per COM:FOP#France, the policy did not change. Some images were agued to be de minimis, but I think it doesn't apply because the viaduc forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, and the photograph was taken deliberately to include the viaduc. –Tryphon☂ 21:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Viaduc_de_Millau&oldid=164713259"