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
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Added comment
Sammy D III (talk | contribs)
1,269 edits
No edit summary
Line 116: Line 116:
:The existence of another DR isn't a valid excuse to keep copyrighted images. Especially if the DR in question hasn't even been closed yet. Let alone as kept. Even it had though, it's not like people don't make mistakes sometimes or that I'm not willing to strike out images that people think are free of copyright. I'm perfectly willing to strike out whatever images in this or any other DR that people think aren't copyrighted. As long as they make a reasonable argument for it that's based on policy and consensus. I've done so multiple times here already. You people seem to have no other argument in either of these DRs except to make it personal though. Real petty and a shame if you ask me. It's not like whomever closes this won't see through the spurious, bad faithed comments and just delete the copyright infringing images if there are anyway. If there aren't, cool. I could really care less. Sometimes DRs are closed as keep because there isn't a consensus to delete the images for whatever reason. That's just how this works. Have fun wasting everyone's time with the bloviating and personal attacks in the meantime though. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
:The existence of another DR isn't a valid excuse to keep copyrighted images. Especially if the DR in question hasn't even been closed yet. Let alone as kept. Even it had though, it's not like people don't make mistakes sometimes or that I'm not willing to strike out images that people think are free of copyright. I'm perfectly willing to strike out whatever images in this or any other DR that people think aren't copyrighted. As long as they make a reasonable argument for it that's based on policy and consensus. I've done so multiple times here already. You people seem to have no other argument in either of these DRs except to make it personal though. Real petty and a shame if you ask me. It's not like whomever closes this won't see through the spurious, bad faithed comments and just delete the copyright infringing images if there are anyway. If there aren't, cool. I could really care less. Sometimes DRs are closed as keep because there isn't a consensus to delete the images for whatever reason. That's just how this works. Have fun wasting everyone's time with the bloviating and personal attacks in the meantime though. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
*{{Comment}} [https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article-abstract/70/2/205/6031953?redirectedFrom=fulltext Here's] a quote from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRUR%20International GRUR International] (a peer reviewed journal of European and international IP law BTW) that addresses the question of if interior design can be copyrighted or not, which comes from the Copyright Act, Arts. 2(5) and 12 ‒ Wycon v Kiko "Pursuant to Art. 2(5) of the Copyright Act, an interior design project is protected as an architectural work as long as it manifests the personal imprint of the author and can be recognized as his unitary creation due to precise choices in the composition of its elements, not dictated by the necessity to solve a technical or functional problem." It goes on to say "The legal notion of architecture has evolved to include interior design, without it being necessary for the elements of which the design is composed to be inseparably incorporated into the building." The last bit of the second quote is particluarly important to this IMO. Just to reiterate, interior design elements do not have to be incorporated into the building for them to hold copyright. So the claims that the interior design of a building can't be copyrighted are clearly meritless and have zero legal backing. Even in cases where the design elements are not incorporated into the actual architecture of the building. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
*{{Comment}} [https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article-abstract/70/2/205/6031953?redirectedFrom=fulltext Here's] a quote from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRUR%20International GRUR International] (a peer reviewed journal of European and international IP law BTW) that addresses the question of if interior design can be copyrighted or not, which comes from the Copyright Act, Arts. 2(5) and 12 ‒ Wycon v Kiko "Pursuant to Art. 2(5) of the Copyright Act, an interior design project is protected as an architectural work as long as it manifests the personal imprint of the author and can be recognized as his unitary creation due to precise choices in the composition of its elements, not dictated by the necessity to solve a technical or functional problem." It goes on to say "The legal notion of architecture has evolved to include interior design, without it being necessary for the elements of which the design is composed to be inseparably incorporated into the building." The last bit of the second quote is particluarly important to this IMO. Just to reiterate, interior design elements do not have to be incorporated into the building for them to hold copyright. So the claims that the interior design of a building can't be copyrighted are clearly meritless and have zero legal backing. Even in cases where the design elements are not incorporated into the actual architecture of the building. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}I don't think you understand me. I take no position whatsoever on any copyright issue. I object to your actions only and wish to share them with others. Did YOU inform anyone that you were having a similar discussion, about similar points, with multiple editors on different requests? Now anyone who reads this comment, ''especially the closer'', will be able to check you out. Your repetitious arguments which nobody else seems to agree with.

I am outdenting this so that your regular habit of making long, labeled comments to your own answers doesn't confuse others and make them think that more than one person holds your views. Thank you. [[User:Sammy D III|Sammy D III]] ([[User talk:Sammy D III|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:41, 25 March 2023

Files in Category:Hotel rooms in Switzerland

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 now, nobody understands what you are doing here … Albinfo (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)'[reply]
And you shouldn't edit other people's comments or add new comments into them. So that's on you dude. Maybe don't do it next time and I wouldn't have deleted your comments. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 21 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]
I don't mind that the comments were restored, but they shouldn't have been inserted into my comment in the first place. The last time I checked it's a pretty established norm that you don't edit or otherwise alter other people's comments. So that's on Albinfo for doing it in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding comments like this is a well-established way of handling such discussions in the German Wikipedia: Putting a comment in context with the original remark (without changing the original text).
I wasn't aware that this wasn't common practice in all projects. Sorry for introducing new ideas of handling things.
But I still don't like your tone, calling others dude and so.
And I still think that it's very unclear for others to follow what is going on here – without reading the whole discussion, nobody can figure out why e.g. there is a deletion request on File:Dolder Grand Hotel - Denkmalgeschützte Suite.jpg but the file is struck out over here. You should add a remark why it is struck out, maybe remove the deletion request on the page of the file in discussion. Otherwise people aren't going to be able to parse out what is going on here. Albinfo (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and voted of Albinfo restored + further comments

End of section restored + Further comments

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubenGomezPhotography (talk • contribs) , 20 mrt 2023 19:15

Just because you own the image doesn't mean anything if what your taking a picture of is copyrighted. That said, I struck out the image in question anyway. So it's a none issue. Except please don't insert new comments into other people's next time. It's super obnoxious and shouldn't be done. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that "modern building" or "old building" matters in this case.
The question is: Do we see a protected work on the photo? This can be archtiecture, can be interior design, can be an artwork.
I quoted above where I detected some protected work. As mentioned before, Swiss laws require en:Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality originality, see also de:Urheberrecht_(Schweiz)#Schutzkriterien and Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights. --Albinfo (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{The question is: Do we see a protected work on the photo? This can be architecture, can be interior design, can be an artwork.}} The modern versus old thing matters because a building from the 16th century obviously isn't going to be copyrighted as a work architecture. Whereas, a new building probably will be. Putting that aside for now though, earlier in the discussion you said "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." Which I agree with a plain room doesn't generate copyright. But the building that the room is a part of can. The fact that the room is plain doesn't matter if the rest of the structure is copyrighted. Just like a "plain" (whatever that means) image of a copyrighted book, work of art, or whatever is still copyrighted. Otherwise, you'd have to argue the images are de minimis (as in they only depict a small part of the rooms architecture, but I don't see you doing that). That said, even if I went with the whole thing about images of "plain" rooms not being copyrighted, the rooms in the images aren't plain. For instance the bathroom in File:Lausanne Palace - salle de bains.jpg is decorated. Same goes for other images. It would be ridiculous to say images like File:Ibis Styles Palexpo, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0301-Pano).jpg and File:Loveroom Panorama Variante1.png are of plain, undecorated rooms. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep ALL FILES IN THIS REQUEST for now. A similar mass deletion is being discussed here. These are two parallel discussions on similar requests by the same editor. Sammy D III (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of another DR isn't a valid excuse to keep copyrighted images. Especially if the DR in question hasn't even been closed yet. Let alone as kept. Even it had though, it's not like people don't make mistakes sometimes or that I'm not willing to strike out images that people think are free of copyright. I'm perfectly willing to strike out whatever images in this or any other DR that people think aren't copyrighted. As long as they make a reasonable argument for it that's based on policy and consensus. I've done so multiple times here already. You people seem to have no other argument in either of these DRs except to make it personal though. Real petty and a shame if you ask me. It's not like whomever closes this won't see through the spurious, bad faithed comments and just delete the copyright infringing images if there are anyway. If there aren't, cool. I could really care less. Sometimes DRs are closed as keep because there isn't a consensus to delete the images for whatever reason. That's just how this works. Have fun wasting everyone's time with the bloviating and personal attacks in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Here's a quote from GRUR International (a peer reviewed journal of European and international IP law BTW) that addresses the question of if interior design can be copyrighted or not, which comes from the Copyright Act, Arts. 2(5) and 12 ‒ Wycon v Kiko "Pursuant to Art. 2(5) of the Copyright Act, an interior design project is protected as an architectural work as long as it manifests the personal imprint of the author and can be recognized as his unitary creation due to precise choices in the composition of its elements, not dictated by the necessity to solve a technical or functional problem." It goes on to say "The legal notion of architecture has evolved to include interior design, without it being necessary for the elements of which the design is composed to be inseparably incorporated into the building." The last bit of the second quote is particluarly important to this IMO. Just to reiterate, interior design elements do not have to be incorporated into the building for them to hold copyright. So the claims that the interior design of a building can't be copyrighted are clearly meritless and have zero legal backing. Even in cases where the design elements are not incorporated into the actual architecture of the building. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand me. I take no position whatsoever on any copyright issue. I object to your actions only and wish to share them with others. Did YOU inform anyone that you were having a similar discussion, about similar points, with multiple editors on different requests? Now anyone who reads this comment, especially the closer, will be able to check you out. Your repetitious arguments which nobody else seems to agree with.

I am outdenting this so that your regular habit of making long, labeled comments to your own answers doesn't confuse others and make them think that more than one person holds your views. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Hotel_rooms_in_Switzerland&oldid=743624365"