Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Oorlog en Vrede (Rotterdam)

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:Oorlog en Vrede (Rotterdam)[edit]

FOP in the Netherlands doesn't seem to include applied art and the artist of these reliefs, Giacomo Manzù, died in 1991. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2062 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant page is Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands. It seems to me that (most of) these are covered by FoP on 3D artwork. Yann (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most (if not all) applied art is 3d dimensional in some way, shape, or form because it's being placed on a functional everyday object. So don't think the clause about 3D artwork qualifying for FOP is relevant to applied art. Otherwise, you'd have to argue that there's zero point in excluding it from freedom of panorama to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are not applied art, according to WP. Yann (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like they would be going by the second set of images in the article. If you look at the definitions for applied arts in the Wikidata entry they include "arts that apply design and decoration to everyday objects" and "decorative arts", which is how I would describe it. Regardless though, I think both of those definitions would fit here. Especially the first one. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is applied art. As it is not permanently displayed in a public place, I can understand why it is not included in the law. Yann (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know the standard as to make something "applied art" has nothing to do with if the object is on permanent display in public or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has to do because applied art could be, or could not be on permanent display, while all the artworks above are. Yann (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep These reliefs are clearly included in Dutch FoP (Art. 18 Dutch Copyright Law, see Dutch text and English translation. ("Reproduction or publication of pictures made in order to be put on permanent display in public places, of a work such as is normally found in such places, will not be regarded as an infringement of the copyright of the author in a work as specified in Article 10, paragraph 1, at point 6, or a work relating to architecture as specified in Article 10, paragraph 1, at point 8.") -- Vysotsky (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how that's relevant when these images aren't "Reproductions or publications of pictures made in order to be put on permanent display in public places, of a work such as is normally found in such places" and the reliefs aren't "a work as specified in Article 10, paragraph 1, at point 6, or a work relating to architecture as specified in Article 10, paragraph 1, at point 8." Even if the reliefs were "a work as specified in Article 10, paragraph 1, at point 6, or a work relating to architecture as specified in Article 10, paragraph 1, at point 8" no ones putting the images on permanent display in public places anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment These reliefs are clearly a work of art as meant in Dutch Copyright Law, Art 10, par. 1:6, "works of architecture and sculpture"). Art. 18 addresses freedom of panorama of images of these works ( "the reproduction or making public of images of the work as it is situated there" - better transl.). -- Vysotsky (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it means the exclusion of "applied artwork" is irrelevant to this regardless though. As something can both be a sculpture and applied art at the same time. For instance, a door knocker with a face on it is probably both. So they aren't mutually exclusive and the law is clear that applied artwork doesn't qualify for FOP. That's why it's an exception BTW. Otherwise like I told Yann there'd be zero point in having it to begin with since there isn't really applied artwork that isn't 3 dimensional, and therefore could probably be classified as a sculpture, to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep silly nomination. Obviously covered by FOP. Why is this deletion request in Category:Swiss FOP cases/pending? Multichill (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: Clearly allowable by FOP in the Netherlands both by consensus and a plain reading of the statute. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Oorlog_en_Vrede_(Rotterdam)&oldid=840632720"