Commons:Deletion requests/Aleshina

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Aleshina|year=2024|month=December|day=11}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Aleshina|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Aleshina}} at the end of today's log.

Aleshina

[edit]

These are images of architecturial works of Nina Aleshina, who is still alive ([1]). There is no FOP in Russia ([2]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([3]). --Fernrohr (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No FOP in Russia. Luispihormiguero (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - the architectural design as a whole is protected by copyright, but plain walls or ceilings are not! --Barry Kent (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. As NVO wrote on Fernrohr's talk page: A policy is in place but there's no commitment. None. [...] practically anything built in the Union fails COM:FOP in this or that way. It's a five-digit mass of photos. Current "consensus" is to disregard COM:FOP in this case: no one really cares about legalese crap fabricated in Russia or North Korea. [...] Can this simple statement lead to a summary deletion of all photography in the Union-related categories? (accentuation by me) - yes, it can, if you go ahead deleting stuff like this, resulting in Wikimedia Commons becoming virtually useless for illustrating articles about Russia and/or or the Soviet Union (which occupied 1/6 of the Earth's land area). Change this policy right now because of common sense and the nullo actore, nullus iudex principle, and stop deletions at least until this point is clarified! And BTW, we do not need administrators implementing "commons policies" acting like robots not considering any issues around, like the mentioned above... --SibFreak (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody dares to sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate, even if Aleshina is probably too old to fight for her rights herself. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her rights? Having photos of her works at Wikimedia:Commons or anywhere is OK by Russian law. Forbid commercial use for there Russia pictures (+ change the policy in order to have the possibility to do so) and everything is fine. Much finer then deleting. --SibFreak (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow,  Keep these, at least:

as they are not depicting the entrance halls of Vorobievy Gory station. Only the entrance halls are Aleshina's works. --SibFreak (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever might have created the rest (you see the names here), construction was in 1957-59, so the IP rights have not yet expired. --Fernrohr (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking any kind of photo is legal in the Moscow metro, and neither amateur nor professional photographers are asked by the metro administration to negotiate about the rights with architects. There are thousands of photos from metro not only on the Internet but also in the media etc, and the question of FOP has never been raised before. FOP is not formalized in Russia (I guess), yet it exists when evidently needed. I think this is more of a common sense question. Moreover, I've never heard of any legal cases involving FOP in general, not to speak of metro stations.  Keep VanHelsing.16 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. The format of the Russian law seems to be one of "permitted except where prohibited"; thus there is FOP unless prohibited. The law appears to presume that the work is permitted unless shown to be used for commercial purposes, such as the sale of postcards. Wikipedia is easily recognized as non-commercial. The conclusion that there is no FOP seems contrary to the apparent intent as well as the literal meaning of the law.
Moreover, the purpose here is not to portray this particular artist's work, but to portray what (at least part of) the Metro Station looks like. To interpret it as some have done elsewhere saying it is "clear" this kind of photograph is prohibited because the artwork isn't some incidental, small part of the photograph is to render the words of the law meaningless. Practically every reproduction, either for commercial or non-commercial use is forbidden by this interpretation. It defies logic that a law with a clearly expressed general permission only allows a few rare cases.
Moreover, has anyone holding a copyright over a publicly displayed work of art in Russia asked us or any similar entity to take down photographs of that work? If not, then this rash of expurgations because someone thinks it might violate copyrights seems rash and unnecessary. If no Russian artist gives the law this tortured reading, why should we? The conclusion that there is no FOP at all contradicts the language of the law. IleanaDU (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use exception may apply?

[edit]

Article 1274. Free use of the work in the informational, scientific, educational or cultural purposes 1. Allowed without the consent of the author or copyright holder and without remuneration, but provided that the author's name, the product is used and the source of borrowing: 1) quotation in the original or in translation, scientific, polemical, critical or informational purposes only lawfully published works to the extent justified by the intended purpose, including reproduction of excerpts from newspaper and magazine articles in press reviews; 2) the use of lawfully disclosed works or fragments of them as illustrations in publications, radio and television broadcasts, audio and video recordings of educational nature to the extent justified by the purpose; ...

http://copyright.ru/ru/library/zakonodatelstvo/gk_rf_obschee_zakonodatel/grazhdanskii_kodeks_RF_4_chast/glava_70__avtorskoe_pravo/1274_svobodnoe_ispolzovanie_proezvidenia/ IleanaDU (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept those where the interior did not meet the threshold of originality; deleted the others as no freedom of panorama exists in Russia and the creators have not died 70+ years ago. The argument "they will not sue", "they are widely used" etc. are null and void. Kameraad Pjotr 20:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Aleshina&oldid=559530129"