Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hotel rooms in Switzerland: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Moved comment. It would be great if people stopped inserting their comments into mine.
Line 18: Line 18:
* [[:File:Grand Hôtel Kempinski Genève - chambre.jpg]]
* [[:File:Grand Hôtel Kempinski Genève - chambre.jpg]]
* {{strikethrough|[[:File:Hotel Room Mirror Selfie.jpg]]}}
* {{strikethrough|[[:File:Hotel Room Mirror Selfie.jpg]]}}
** Was signed in with wrong account for first comment. I own this image. I put it here for public use. By putting it on Wikimedia, I, as the image owner, authorized others to use it under the term set forth in the entry. {{unsigned|RubenGomezPhotography}}, 20 mrt 2023 19:15
* [[:File:Hotelbett Gold-Zimmer - panoramio.jpg]]
* [[:File:Hotelbett Gold-Zimmer - panoramio.jpg]]
* [[:File:Ibis Styles Palexpo, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0301-Pano).jpg]]
* [[:File:Ibis Styles Palexpo, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0301-Pano).jpg]]
Line 99: Line 98:
* Overall I agree with the assessment of Albinfo of 12:17, 20 March 2023, with a few exceptions, which I will comment in the above section. -- [[User:Mdd|Mdd]] ([[User talk:Mdd|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
* Overall I agree with the assessment of Albinfo of 12:17, 20 March 2023, with a few exceptions, which I will comment in the above section. -- [[User:Mdd|Mdd]] ([[User talk:Mdd|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
* [[:File:CDO web chambre 003.jpg]] was released under a free license by the owners of the hotel, so this should be excluded. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 23:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
* [[:File:CDO web chambre 003.jpg]] was released under a free license by the owners of the hotel, so this should be excluded. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 23:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
** Was signed in with wrong account for first comment. I own this image. I put it here for public use. By putting it on Wikimedia, I, as the image owner, authorized others to use it under the term set forth in the entry. {{unsigned|RubenGomezPhotography}}, 20 mrt 2023 19:15

Revision as of 01:00, 21 March 2023

Unfortunately FOP laws in Switzerland don't cover images taken inside of buildings, which includes room interiors. So these are probably copyrighted unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in roms, say not all interior-Fotos are forbiten. No Art on Photos no Problems. 3 Beeds are never a problem. A Room with interior that are more then 100 Years old also. --Bobo11 (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with excluding the images of the 100 year old room or whatever from the nomination if you want to point out which one they are. That said, other elements of the rooms can still be copyrighted. So can any remodels or parts of the room that were changed since the building was built. So it's not as simple as saying "the building is 100 years old. So FOP." It really depends on what else is in the image and what building it is. Also, the assortation that it only applies to art on photos is wrong. Other things are also copyrightable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No items with coyrigth in the Room -better on the photo-, no problems with this photo. A item musst have a threshold of originality, also the part of archidektur that are visiable. Most items in a hotelroom to not agree with the roules of copyright, or are attachment. --Bobo11 (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the painting in This image and this one don't meet the threshold of originality? Weird take, but OK. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Bobo11 said: FOP is only an exception of the copyright rule. Thus, there must be something that is protected by copyright – before you can talk about FOP, you have to proof that there is a copyright protected value. A plain room with a bed, two chairs and regular cupboard does not generate any copyright. --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been a lot better to vote keep and then do it with the cavate that you wanted the two files deleted. Now the nomination is essentially illegible. Good job. Can you please revert your edit and just do it how I've suggested? Otherwise people aren't going to be able to parse out your mess to figure out how to vote. Really, inserting new comments into other people's is dumb and shouldn't be done. Period. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I just deleted your comments. Please don't do that again. BTW, I also struck out the file for Berghotel Schatzalp, Davos since like both you say it was built in 1900. It would be good if the both you could come up with the dates the other hotels were built if your going to claim the architecture is free of copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must not delete other persons comments!
As each image is a different case, all images need to be treated seperately. My comments were clear – but know, nobody understands what you are doing here … Albinfo (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Adamant1, you just deleted 20 comments and votes by @Albinfo: , see below. I believe this is not fair and this not just, so I restored his comment here below. -- Mdd (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and voted of Albinfo restored + further comments

* File:Davos, Berghotel Schatzalp, Kaiserzimmer.jpg

End of section restored + Further comments