Commons:Deletion requests/Alexey Dushkin

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.

Alexey Dushkin

[edit]

These are images of architecturial works of en:Alexey Dushkin (who died in 1977). There is no FOP in Russia ([1]) nor Ukraine ([2]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([3]). Should be Category "Undelete in 2048/52" --Fernrohr (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand these images are FOP, so they can be share without the autor's permission. In other hand, this is a public work make by the government request and it's located in a public space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.60.116 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 August 2010‎  (UTC+8)

 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) 07:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the argument "deletion is inconvenient and nobody will sue WMF based on this legalese crap, so let's ignore it" particularly inadequate. Nothing needs to be clarified, it is all pretty clear. Dura lex, sed lex, since you like Latin. --Fernrohr (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - indeed, it's very inconvenient and regrettable, but a clear case. There are, by the way, still lots of buildings in Russia / former SU where the architect is dead for more than 70 years, and other sights (like mountains, rivers, other landscapes) that aren't a problem. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The Russian law is clear. The following are not reasons to keep:

  • Commons has not done a good job of enforcing it in the past -- we must start some time, now is better than later
  • It is inconvenient -- it's also a nuisance in the USA, but we manage.
  • No one will sue -- Commons policy is to honor copyright, not consider whether we could get away with it.
  • Common sense. -- Many laws miss common sense by a wide margin.

We don't have to like it, but we must delete all of these.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - there is zero evidence that Russian courts are interpreting these laws in a way that would make a photo of any building a copyright violation. All we have are a couple of "wiki lawyers'" opinions. Without such evidence, we're shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention alienating a lot of contributors, by deleting these images unnecessarily. What we need are some precedents or a couple of Russian lawyers (and yes, I know a few if that will help). Rklawton (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provided the translation into English at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia is correct (which I assume, but don't know for sure, as I don't read Russian), I can't see how the law could be interpreted any other way, as the English text is pretty clear. It says that freedom of panorama doesn't apply if "portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction" (which is the case here - note, even if not commercially used) or "where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes" (even if not the basic object of the reproduction). As I read it, this doesn't allow images (commercial or non-commercial) of buildings in Russia that are still protected by copyright, and images of buildings that aren't central to the photograph only if used non-commercially, which is a restriction not accepted on Commons. But if you know Russian lawyers, it certainly would be helpful to hear from a lawyer whether Commons' translation is correct. However, I wouldn't expect more than a "non-commercial" FOP, at best, and Commons can't host images with such a restriction. Commercial use must be fully allowed. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if the shooting in the subway is allowed by administration? --Иван Гриценко (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not the shooting. The question is the publishing. Rklawton (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I don't think it is necessarily that clear. See my comments at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Aleshina including the language from the statute that apparently allows fair use. IleanaDU (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, IleanaDU, but you apparently do not understand Commons's requirements in two different ways:
  • The statutes in most countries allow fair use. Commons does not allow it for the simple reason that a fair use rationale is specific to the context in which the image is used and Commons has no context.
  • At Commons:Deletion requests/Aleshina you say, "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." But Commons is here exactly so that someone can take a photograph from here and publish it as a postcard or use it in any other commercial way. Commons is absolutely not non-commercial. And, by the way, this is not Wikipedia, and our rules are very different. (The postcard example is well known to me -- one of my images from Commons has been published as a postcard).
So, since we require both freedom to use commercially and freedom to use without a fair use rationale, the Russian lack of FOP is still clear and these images are still not permitted here. We do not have to like it, but we must delete them.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is pure idiocy......... 72.208.97.129 01:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to close this -- it has been open for three months. The arguments against deletion are, from top to bottom:

  • There are many other images that must be deleted -- "a five-digit mass of photos." Yes, but we must start somewhere.
  • "there is zero evidence that Russian courts are interpreting these laws...". That may be, but our policy explicitly rejects this, "Also, arguments that amount to “we can get away with it”, such as the following, run counter to Commons’ aims."
  • That fair use is permitted. But Commons doesn't allow fair use.
  • That Commons is not commercial use. But, actually, it is -- we require freedom for commercial use.
  • "This is pure idiocy." Perhaps, but that can be corrected only by a change in the Russian law. Our firm policy is to obey the law.

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Alexey_Dushkin&oldid=837733810"