Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Palace of the Parliament of Romania

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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:Palace of the Parliament of Romania 1

[edit]

No FoP in Romania - this palace was designed by a team of architects led by Anca Petrescu (died in 2013) - construction was begun in 1980 and finished in 1997

INeverCry 08:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the following, as having the palace as a secondary subject (which is acceptable for the Romanian law): File:EPP Congress 1831 (8096486583).jpg, File:EPP Congress 1837 (8096486337).jpg, File:EPP Congress 1841 (8096494034).jpg, File:EPP Congress 2012. Day 1 (8094574447).jpg, File:EPP Congress 2012. Day 1 (8094574579).jpg, File:EPP Congress 2012. Day 1 (8094574691).jpg, File:EPP Congress 2012. Day 1 (8094574781).jpg, File:EPP Congress 2012. Day 1 (8094580084).jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului 1.jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului schuh001.jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului și Bulevardul Unirii, Zilele Bucureștiului 2014.JPG--Strainu (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a few people standing around, or some blue signs hung about doesn't make the Palace, which takes up the majority of the frame in all of these, a "secondary subject". These should be deleted. INeverCry 09:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're generalizing. In some of these picture the palace is blurred, in others only the base of the column is visible and in others yet the palace takes only a fraction of the picture. These cannot be considered as having the palace as main subject.--Strainu (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I uploaded File:Casa Poporului, Romania's House of Parliament.jpg about six years ago, together with several dozen other Romanian images, I wasn't aware of Romanian FOP restrictions. When one of those images was challenged, I found FOP restrictions deeply counter-intuitive, and confusing. I prepared a list of the other Romanian images I uploaded that night.

    I still find FOP counter-intuitive. FOP is sometimes interpreted surprisingly leniently for images from France, with contributors arguing it only applies to building with designs that have a "creative" element, which I find odd, as even the most utilitarian garden shed has some creative elements. Anyhow, if this image should go, some of the other images in the list of images I uploaded at the same time should go too. Geo Swan (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Comment Most uploaders don't know FOP restrictions exist, find them absurd when they hear about it, and protest in good faith when the deletion of their pictures is requested. The French community being particularly vociferous on the matter, many French admins (including myself) have studied FOP case law, which mitigates the absence of FOP in French law – hence the perceived leniency. My knowledge of Romanian case law is almost non-existent, but we generally apply the De Minimis rule, which encompasses both the building being shown as a secondary subject and the building being shown as part of a general landscape. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two different de minimis situations in copyright law:
  1. The work is not the main subject. For example, article 24.2 of the Danish copyright law states that artworks permanently installed in public places may be depicted if they are not the main subject of the depiction, but other artworks do not qualify for this kind of de minimis under Danish copyright law. I would say that no building is the main subject of File:Palatul Parlamentului 1.jpg, so that picture seems to satisfy this de minimis situation.
  2. The work is irrelevant to the context. This essentially means that removing the work from the picture wouldn't cause any harm. For example, article 23.3 of the Danish copyright law tells that published artworks and copies of artworks which the author has transferred to others may be reproduced in newspapers, magazines, film and television if the artwork is contextually irrelevant. This Danish exception covers virtually all artworks, but it is more difficult to find a situation where an artwork is contextually irrelevant, so there are fewer cases where this situation applies. The purpose of this picture appears to be to display pictures of houses in a city, so this version of de minimis doesn't seem to apply.
France seems to have chosen to use something similar to Danish article 24.2 with respect to works permanently installed in public places. I'm not sure which version of de minimis Romania uses, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. Romanian law acknowledges a limitation to copyright for the reproduction "of the image of an architectural work (...) permanently located in a public place, except where the image of the work is the principal subject (subiectul principal) of such reproduction", so that would be your 24.2 (French case law acknowledges both 24.2 and 23.3 meanings). Unfortunately I can't find any case law on the matter. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jastrow, I think your interpretation is quite narrow; if the work is irrelevant in the context (such as here and in some other EPP pictures, both inside and outside the palace), how can it be considered the main subject of the picture?--Strainu (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also probably need to delete File:20140816 București 153.jpg, File:20140816 București 155.jpg, which I just placed in the category. I think File:Bucharest (14161334433).jpg (which I also recently categorized) is arguably OK because it is de minimis, the main focal subject is a fountain that I think is itself below any threshold for copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Bucharest (13954606099).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 03:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19 more:

- Jmabel 16:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think File:Palatul Parlamentului Palace of Parliament from University Square Bucharest Bucuresti Romania.JPG (not listed above but also in the category) is OK. Despite being mentioned in the name of the photo, the Palace is barely visible, in little enough detail that I suspect no copyright problem arises. I'm not nominating it for deletion, but someone else may want to. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (most pictures): per the nominator: the building is still copyrighted, no freedom of panorama in Romania. Were kept:

However, I deleted some pictures of the EPP series which looked more like the Palace with some tiny blue banners on it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (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:Palace of the Parliament of Romania 2

[edit]

No FOP in Romania.

Kulmalukko (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 10 March 2017 (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:Palace of the Parliament of Romania 3

[edit]

No Freedom Of Panorama in Romania.

Kulmalukko (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for File:Parcul Izvor (1).jpg, because it is more about the park than the building in the background. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:01, 25 July 2017 (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:Palace of the Parliament of Romania 4

[edit]

No FOP in Romania.

Kulmalukko (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Bucureşti The Presidential Palace. May 1996 (3993876724).jpg as the palace does not hold the central place in the picture (as required by Romanian copyright law) and the cars themselves are relevant for Bucharest at the time.--Strainu (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination (except one kept). --Green Giant (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2018 (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:Palace of the Parliament of Romania 5

[edit]

This building was designed by Anca Petrescu, d. 2013. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Romania has no Commons-acceptable FoP. Its FOP is limited only to noncommercial, not compatible with Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. The selected images fail COM:DM, as the main focus and intent of the images is the building itself.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the following, for the reasons mentioned in the previous discussions in this page:

Razvan Socol (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:43, 24 November 2020 (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:Palace of the Parliament of Romania

[edit]

The building was completed in 1997 by Anca Petrescu (1949–2013). Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in Romania. The copyright term in Romania lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2084.

A1Cafel (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The several claims of de minimis are absurd. The palace overwhelms the images -- the only thing in the image beside the palace is an street that could be anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Palace_of_the_Parliament_of_Romania&oldid=706937926"