Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Opéra Bastille

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:Opéra Bastille

[edit]

The blanket statement "because the architect had wished it to be copyleft" is not enough and doesn't comply with COM:L which requires an explicit commercial license from the architect and that such license is specific and irrevocable. If the architect doesn't allow its inclusion in commercial postcards and advertising materials, then this building is still unfree for Commons. There is no acceptable FOP in France, its architect is still living. See an admin's opposing input to my undeletion attempt at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:Opera bastille.JPG. See also [1], which includes Opéra Bastille as one of the copyright-protected monumental buildings.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment If the architect have made a valid statement, that this is copyleft then I think we can keep it. If someone write to us directly via OTRS we should of course try to make them select a specific license etc. But is the statement is not send directly to us I think we should not reject it just because it does not meet our current practice. I bet many old OTRS permissions would not be accepted today for example.
If the architect is alive then pehaps someone that speak French could send a nice mail asking for clarification if needed. --MGA73 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • MGA73 I'm not sure if this will work. Per elcobbola at my failed undeletion attempt, "COM:L requires an explicit license and that such license is specific and irrevocable. Statement that 'the architect had wished it to be copyleft' does not meet these criteria and is entirely inadequate." I realize that it is indeed inadequate because we don't know what type of license does w:Carlos Ott authorize in his blanket statement. CC-BY/CC-BY-SA/PD, or the Commons-unacceptable CC licenses with "NC" (no-commercial) or "ND" (no-derivatives) conditions? A French-speaking (since the architectural artwork is in France) or Spanish-speaking (since the architect hails from a Spanish-speaking country) is encouraged to conduct correspondence to the architect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • JWilz12345 I have not seen the wording of the statement so I can't decide if it is good enough. I just wanted to point out that I do not think we should not be super strict regarding permissions that is not send to us directly. When someone send a permission to OTRS we can be strict because we can easily ask them to clarify and they can easily reply. We can't do that if the statement is not send to us directly. If it is unclear what is meant then I think we should use the least free license instead of just assuming he meant PD. But regarding copyleft then if you read en:Copyleft#Copyleft_principles then it says that it allows derivative works and it is even more clear in the table at en:Copyleft#Types_and_relation_to_other_licenses that "copyleft" does not include NC or ND.
According to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle we should delete if there is "significant doubt about the freedom". It does not mean we should delete all files where ther is the slightest risk.
So in my opinion we can  Keep if we can prove that he did make a statemt and if he did use the word copyleft. However if it is just the uploader that say "I once met him on the street and he told me that he would like his work to be free" then I would  Delete. --MGA73 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: the statement is at the category page itself, using an archived source as citation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The links are broken but on the archieved version on web.archive.org we can see the text. I do not speak French but if the English translation is correct then I think that it is very likely that the architect did in fact whish the opera to be copy left - if SNAPIG (Syndicat national des agences photographiques d'illustration générale) is an organization that can be trusted. --MGA73 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73: that's one thing I can't answer sadly. I cannot understand French too. Hopefully French Wikipedians will help here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MGA73. 73.158.114.70 14:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

If it helps any, here is the English translation (from this updated link):

“We can understand the photographer's anger when we know that among recent monuments only the Bastille Opera House can be freely photographed. The architect (an original?) wanted it to be free of rights. Normally, the copyright of architects is required until seventy years after their death. But when a new 'artist' adds his or her contribution to an old building, it's back to the drawing board... This is typically the case with the Eiffel Tower. To reproduce a photo of this national icon at night, you must first pay a fee to the lighting company, the Société nouvelle d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel. The reason? The lighting, let it be said, is a "work of the soul". At least since a ruling by the Créteil High Court in March 1998. In the same way, fireworks and other sounds and lights are also protected... A bit of an exaggeration?”

Furthermore, from the 'What Can you Photograph in Paris?' official Paris City Hall webpage:

"The panorama exception allows copyright to be neutralised for photographs of architectural works and sculptures permanently placed on public thoroughfares (thus ephemeral works are not included) provided that the photograph is not used for commercial purposes."

As for what really is (or isn't) 'copyleft' or not (for any country), 'istockphoto' (getty images) is (also) a good reference: in the link, notice that none of their Eiffel tower images include its lighting, because the SNTE (Société Nouvelle de la Tour Eiffel) does demand authors' rights for images taken of its lighting additions to the tower. And since Getty straight-out sells images, you can be sure that they know that they would be at the top of the target list for any architect seeking royalties/authors' rights. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePromenader: I don't think it is sufficient. To quote the opposing input of Elcobbola (one of Commons' veteran admins) over a deleted image of this same building I was trying to restore then: "COM:L requires an explicit license and that such license is specific and irrevocable. Statement that "the architect had wished (or wanted) it to be copyleft" does not meet these criteria and is entirely inadequate." I think the only question us what degree of freeness does the architect wished? Free photography is out of question. Perhaps free, unrestricted commercial exploitations of images of his work is the thing here. Perhaps the true question is: is architect w:Carlos Ott willing to release his architectural work under free license or public domain in the way that everyone can take photos and exploit the resulting images freely even for commercial purposes? And is his desire to release his work under copyleft perpetual/for eternity? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Eiffel Tower at night, all of the deleted images of it here were recently restored, on the grounds that the current lighting is too ordinary to pass COM:TOO France, and that the court ruling actually refers to a specific lighting during the 90s (if I can recall correctly). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. There is no Freedom of Panorama in France, per COM:FOP France. We would need a clear statement from the architect. This would be good for the free content lobby. But "copyleft"is too vague to rely on. --Ellywa (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:Opéra Bastille

[edit]

No FoP in France, and the building was designed by Carlos Ott who is still alive. France knows a standard of life + 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)  Keep Are you serious ? "The images of the Opera Bastille are free of rights, despite no COM:FOP France. The architect authorized free use of pictures of the Opera. See http://www.snapig.com/fr/Y-a-pas-photo.pdf (archieved version on web.archive.org). Page 23 of this PDF document we can read (in French) : "parmi les monuments récents seul l’Opéra de la Bastille peut être librement photographié. L’architecte [...] l’ayant souhaité libre de droits. (translation : "among recent monuments only the Opéra Bastille can be freely photographed because the architect had wished it to be copyleft"). This document is edited by the SNAPIG (Syndicat national des agences photographiques d'illustration générale), which is quite serious and, according to their website, has been created with the strong wish to respect authors rights.[reply]

See also http://www.sne.fr/img/pdf/SNE/Illustration/y-a-pas-photo2.pdf (archieved version on web.archive.org), page 23, or http://www.sne.fr/img/file/pdf/SNE/Commissions/Illustration/espacePublic.pdf (link no longer online), page 10 (document edited by the Syndicat national de l'édition)." --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, very interesting. But see above, same argument was made before. If the ones above get undeleted, I withdraw my DR as well. If not, sorry. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebring12Hrs the architect should send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation (see COM:VRTS) if he really desires to allow everyone to exploit his building for commercial purposes. But there is a likelihood that anti-FoP and anti-Wikipedia group ADAGP will restrain him from doing so. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Opéra_Bastille&oldid=882803692"