Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Art in Moscow Metro

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:Art in Moscow Metro

[edit]

All images contain an artwork that are protected by copyright. This is modern sculptures, reliefs, mosaics and other art objects. Authors are still alive or after death in less than 70 years. Not COM:FOP, see COM:FOP#Russia. Wrong licensing - all images is derivative works, see COM:DW.

Andrey Korzun (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are not protected by copyright.

2. Допускается свободное использование путем воспроизведения и распространения изготовленных экземпляров, сообщения в эфир или по кабелю, доведения до всеобщего сведения в форме изображений произведений архитектуры, градостроительства и произведений садово-паркового искусства, расположенных в месте, открытом для свободного посещения, или видных из этого места.

(Russian Federation Civil codex). AndyVolykhov (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Art in Moscow Metro (part 2)

All images contain an artwork that are protected by copyright. This is modern sculptures, reliefs, mosaics and other art objects. Authors are still alive or after death in less than 70 years. Not COM:FOP, see COM:FOP#Russia. Wrong licensing - all images is derivative works, see COM:DW.

Andrey Korzun (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose:  Keep File:1905 год на стене метро Ул. 1905 года.JPG — it's just sign for 1905 year, nothing art in this file. Like this file. По-русски: на фотографии изображён лишь металлический знак для 1905 года, ничего художественного в нём нет. Точно также как здесь — --Brateevsky {talk} 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Commons:Threshold of originality. Obviously, the bas-relief of the figures is not appropriate, it is above the threshold of originality. This is no ordinary font. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose:  Keep some files. A photo have no FoP in Russia and should be deleted only if the copyrighted artwork is the basic object of that reproduction, however, some images contains copyrighted artwork just as small part of image, which isn't a basic object of it, and these files should be kept or partially cut, not fully deleted from Commons. For example:
    • File:Rimskaya_03.jpg — there is a photo of station hall, copyrighted sculpture on this photo occupies VERY small part of it. I think this photo must be fully kept.
    • File:Babushkinskaya_Station_Moscow_2.jpg — relief on this photo occupies smaller part of it and isn't basic object; there is photo of station, which also includes platform, tunnel portals, escalators and ceiling of station.
    • File:Посадочная_платформа_2.JPG — the basic object is entire station hall, which includes platform, walls and ceiling; the copyrighted plane artwork occupies small part of photo and photographed under big angle, so it isn't main object of photo.
    • File:Kievsk APL 27.jpg — plane artworks are located just in left corner and behind lamps and aren't main objects of image.
      Unfortunately, I can not agree with you. Firstly, you do not exactly cite the law. Can not be used without the consent of copyright holders, "where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes". That is, there is a ban on commercial use, and this is not dependent on the size, it is the basic object or not. Secondly, some images do not have to know where the basic object. Anyway, it is impossible to apply the principle Commons:De minimis, I think. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And also, copyrighted plane artwork on these files with trains

occupies half of photos, so photos should be cut to keep trains. — Xenotron (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to ru-wiki pending. Leave open!! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interiors of buldings and constructions in Russia are architectural objects, by Russian federal law. AndyVolykhov (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not change anything. In the photo we see the sculptures, mosaics, reliefs and other works of art. Of course, they are located in the interiors of the Moscow metro stations. But any painting placed in the interior of the museum, for example. I do not know that he wanted to prove his remark user AndyVolykhov. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is the major difference between "placed in the interior" and "is the interior". All elements pictured above are interiors. AndyVolykhov (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It's certainly details of the interiors. Interiors have a architectural objects, it is trivial, common knowledge and does not require links to Russian laws. But you forget about the synthesis of the arts [2]. I draw your attention to a few times. We'll have to repeat again.
    The interiors of the stations of the Moscow metro is a synthesis of the arts - architecture, fine arts, decorative and applied arts. The mosaics and stained glass windows are works of decorative art, this is a trivial fact. Sculpture, bas-reliefs, murals are works of fine art, this is a trivial fact. The interior can be decorated with artwork or without it (for example, the style of Constructivism, Bauhaus). In the first case is a synthesis of the arts, in the second case is the architecture interiors in its pure form (it was a feature of the style Constructivism and the Bauhaus - nothing extra).
    Artworks in the photographs made by sculptors, painters, mosaicists, chasers. These things did not make the architects. Architects solve common problems, such as proportions, ratio, materials and finishes, colors. Details solve other specialists. The photographs not only architectural works, although it is details of the interiors. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue. However, the synthesis of the arts does not cancel separate copyright in the separate parts of the work. For Example. There is kind of art music, there is kind of art poetry. The synthesis of the arts, for example, a song. Copyright controlled separately on the lyrics and the music of the song. For example, music can be traditional and not protected by copyright. Lyrics will still be protected by copyright. So also in our case. Works of architecture, interior design in general are free from copyright. Interior details - mosaics, sculptures, murals, stained-glass windows, bas-reliefs, are still protected by copyright. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC) All these arguments I have set out in Russian forum and they are not disproved. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, is is a piece of nearly incomprehensible English. Second, the outcome of the lengthy discussion on the Russian forum is that opinions about art objects in general and architectural objects in particular may vary. So far there is no evidence that the artwork in Moscow subway is copyrighted.
Everyone will likely agree that these photos can be stored on Russian Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia Commons, but I am sure that none of the volunteer editors should be forced to do the hard work of image transfer because of your personal opinion about the interpretation of the Russian law. --Alexander (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
>>So far there is no evidence that the artwork in Moscow subway is copyrighted. — The question is the opposite. Under the rules of the Commons, you have to prove be free from copyright. Refer to the burden of proof. It is your task.
But it is not difficult to prove the protection of copyright works on photos. See Russian Civil Code, Article 1259, paragraph 1: Objects of copyright are works of painting, sculpture, graphics, design, ... other works of fine art, .... works of decorative art. Article 1259, paragraph 4: For occurrence, implement and copyright protection does not require registration of the work or observance of any other formalities. Article 1259, paragraph 7: Copyrights extend to the part of the work ... if by nature it could be recognized as an independent result of the creative work of the author.
>>because of your personal opinion about the interpretation of the Russian law.— you are wrong. See Civil Code, Article 1276, paragraph 1: “Reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable shall be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder's consent or payment of royalties, of visual art, or photographic work, that permanently stand in places open for free attendance, except where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes.” Unequivocal ban if the basic object, or if commercial use of the work. It is obvious. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am free from copyright, thank you.
The question at stake here is whether an artwork is a separate copyrighted object or an integral part of the subway station, and which copyright regulations should be applied. No existing legislation stipulates this. It remains a matter of opinion, and we have seen that opinions on this matter vary. There is ample evidence that your interpretation of the law is not shared by many other editors. It is a normal situation when no state regulation exists. But it is not normal that a personal and controversial opinion becomes a regulation. --Alexander (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, most, but kept some. There have been whole month for transferring files into ru.wiki. Taivo (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Art in Moscow Metro

[edit]

Derivatives of 2D and 3D artworks without authors' permissions, no evidence of PD as well.Some demonstrate licence laundering by mos.ru website, which is not proper copyright holder to license the artworks depicted. No FOP in Russia for these.

Quick1984 (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author of Teatralnaya porcelain sculptures is Natalya Danko. She died in 1942. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Teatralnaya (Moscow Metro). Andreykor (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andreykor, excellent. Please feel free to replace your 'own work' claims and CC licenses by proper data and I'll immediately withdraw nominations for these files. --Quick1984 (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Andreykor (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, thanks for co-operation. --Quick1984 (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only my file in this list is File:Medallion Kurskaya-Koltsevaya in Moscow.jpg, shot in 2008. I am outraged by the accusations of license laundering but I just ask to undelete this file in proper time. It's sad to have some of deleted works already overwritten by other users. --Rave (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Art_in_Moscow_Metro&oldid=925782625"