Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Celje

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:Celje

[edit]

Modern apartment buildings; no FOP in Slovenia (see COM:FOP#Slovenia).

Eleassar (t/p) 01:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No copyright violation. Road and parking lot, buildings in the background. -- PhJ (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per PhJ. Yann (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (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:Celje

[edit]

I'm renominating the above three files. Unlike what has been stated, the apartment buildings are well visible and copyrighted, whereas the car park is obscured and unimportant (de minimis). The images may be compared to File:BS3Ljubljana.jpg, which was made in the same manner and has been deleted.

Eleassar (t/p) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep all three are clearly photos of a wider area rather then a specific building. (but maybe you'll get lucky and Jim will close this DR too, so why not try again)--Sporti (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What wider area? All the wider area is occupied by the apartment blocks. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wider area with bus stop, road, sidewalk, grass and car park. --Sporti (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. It was surely the grass that the uploader was interested in. Or the bus stop. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was the whole composition, rather than a single part (I know this is very hard to understand). --Sporti (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is very hard to understand for you, because you seem to miss it. What I wanted to say is that although it's true that the bus stop, the grass, and the sidewalk are there, the main recurring theme on all three images are the apartment blocks, which are copyrighted and not de minimis. ---Eleassar (t/p) 16:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep as above. I also believe than renominating the images a few hours after the DR was closed without any new valid reason is abusive. Yann (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your closures as keep, when it is clear a file should be deleted (like here or here-where it should be deleted per COM:COA), are abusive. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have better arguments than mimicking what I say? It does not show a capacity to analyse a complex copyright situation. You should refrain from opening and commenting on DRs unless you understand that. Admins have better things to do than taking care of your DRs. Yann (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also find this comment of yours arrogant and abusive. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep calm. --Miha (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Judged by the message by Yann and the message on meta by you, I'm actually the only calm person here. I suggest that you two do some work instead of posting flaming messages. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also the comment here, which I personally find more solidly based and argumented than your flaming messages on meta. Can you provide a source for the claim that this is generic architecture? It certainly doesn't look like that. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can. Try searching Google Images for "bloki" (Slovene for block of flats) or "stanovanjsko naselje" (housing estate/appartment complex) and you will see that they are all almost the same. I don't know here you've been living but this kind of arhitecture is generic, widely spread and common in the past few decades. --Miha (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your original research doesn't satisfy me. The buildings listed here look pretty different. As to your comment, I've been living in Slovenia for all my life, so I pretty much know which architecture here is generic and which not. You'll have to try harder. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Since Sporti thinks he knows how I would close these -- he or she is right -- I'll leave these for someone else to close. Two things are clear. If we cropped the buildings out of these we'd have a mass of low tech asphalt paving, so any argument that buildings are not central is specious. In fact, most of us would prefer them if most of the asphalt were cropped out. Second, the Slovenian copyright law is much more explicit about the copyright on architecture than any other that I know well, so we must assume that it was the intention of the Slovenian legislators to protect all
"works of architecture such as sketches, plans, and built structures in the field of architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture;".
These buildings would certainly be protected in the USA; I can see no reason why they would not be protected in Slovenia, given the more comprehensive law there. France is the only country that we know of that withholds copyright from very simple architecture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think France is the only place where there is a threshold for architecture. On the opposite, I think that there is a threshold everywhere, and it is certainly higher in countries where there us no FOP, for obviously practical reasons. Yann (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, there is also something called cultural frame of refference. This type of buildings might seem unfamiliar to you, which might result in percieving it as something original - and therefore suitable for a copyright protection. But in fact it is not so rare here - there is in fact a very similar complex in Trzin and Škofljica (unfortunately I don't recall the street name) and in Ljubljana (for example Celovski dvori). @Eleassar: try with "stanovanjski bloki", apparently we get different results based on my current location. --Miha (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Stanovanjski bloki" are very diverse too; see here. For comparison, "Celovški dvori".[1] --Eleassar (t/p) 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - no protectable design/artwork. The image shown as example for deletion could be seen as showing something creative/protectable if you see the arangement of all buildings but hardly if you only see one of them.. --Denniss (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2013 (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:Celje

[edit]

No evidence the depicted works would be free per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia.

Eleassar (t/p) 06:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Celje (8626504605).jpg – what is copyrighted here?
The aerial photograph on the left side of the image. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Celje (8626506301).jpg – what is here protected with copyright? The drawings on wall are made imitating very old buildings.
Yes, however the imitation is an individual creative work and as such copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Celje (8627458452).jpg shows a very old window, its copyright is expired.
The stained glasses of Celje Cathedral have been created by Stane Kregar (d. 1973).[2] --Eleassar (t/p) 06:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Celje (8627587894).jpg – nothing copyrightable here.
The design of advertisements is copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Celje (8627634698).jpg consists advertising for concerts of Lehar, Paganini and Strauss. They are all long dead, their copyrights are expired. Taivo (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the years 1956 and 2009 on these posters, which are creative works by themselves. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. These files cannot be freely licensed. -FASTILY 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Celje&oldid=101335445"