Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palais Royal Paris Mai 2006 002.jpg
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.
Derivative work for Daniel Buren's work. He unfortunately doesn't allow such pictures. He is actually quite quibbling! I didn't ask for speedy deletion for this one because I was wondering if we could say it's part of the exceptions of FOP in France because the Palais Royal might be considered as the principal object of the picture (see here). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The primary focus of the image is the Palais Royal. If M. Buren's work happens to be in the way, well then too bad for him, the Palais Royal is a public area and therefore entitled to be photographed. Gryffindor 16:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm happy to hear that! Buren can be quite offensive when it comes to make photos of his work. Actually the link I provided above mentions a case law where he was involved. It was about the Place des Terreaux in Lyon and the court stated that there was no copyright problem when the main object of a picture was not Buren's work - although there's officially no FOP in France. I guess this picture is the same case. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a lawyer. However I think it absurd not to be able to photograph the inner courtyard of the Palais Royal, which is clearly a public building, simply because Buren put some pillars on the ground. He does IMO not have a monopoly on the Palais Royal. If the image was only of his work, then I would understand, but not in this case. Gryffindor 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm happy to hear that! Buren can be quite offensive when it comes to make photos of his work. Actually the link I provided above mentions a case law where he was involved. It was about the Place des Terreaux in Lyon and the court stated that there was no copyright problem when the main object of a picture was not Buren's work - although there's officially no FOP in France. I guess this picture is the same case. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Google translation of law says " For reproduction of a building through photography (film, television, pictorial ,...) consent of the architect is required. To build or to place on the public works architectural does, in itself, no abandonment of artistic property rights of the author" (Rabat 1956). Not incidental. Patstuart (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but there is the Arrêt de la "Place des Terreaux" that says it's possible to do so if the main subject is not copyrighted and if it's almost impossible to make a photography of it without showing the copyrighted work. This is the case here. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. This is not a picture of the Palais Royal with an artwork "accidentally" in the way. Look at the converging perspective; look at the framing. Would this photo have even been taken if the artwork were not there? It is a photo of the artwork with the Palais Royal as backdrop. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
