Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hotel rooms in Switzerland
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.
- File:3399 - Fiescheralp - Hotel Eggishorn.JPG
- File:Capsule Hotel Luzern 2.jpg
- File:CDO web chambre 003.jpg
File:Davos, Berghotel Schatzalp, Kaiserzimmer.jpgFile:Dolder Grand Hotel - Denkmalgeschützte Suite.jpgFile:Dolder Grand Hotel - Junior Suite mit Aussicht auf Zürich.jpgFile:Dolder Grand Hotel - Junior Suite.jpg- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4432.jpg
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4433.jpg
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4434.jpg
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4435.jpg
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4436.jpg
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4437.jpg
- File:Gold-Zimmer mit zurueckhaltender Farbgebung und Holzboden - panoramio.jpg
- File:Grand Hôtel Kempinski Genève - chambre.jpg
File:Hotel Room Mirror Selfie.jpg- File:Hotelbett Gold-Zimmer - panoramio.jpg
- File:Ibis Styles Palexpo, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0301-Pano).jpg
- File:Ibis Styles Palexpo, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0312-Pano).jpg
File:Le Mirador Junior Suite.jpg- File:Loveroom Panorama Variante1.png
- File:Schreibtisch mit iHome Soundsystem und W-LAN im Platin-Zimmer - panoramio.jpg
- File:WikiCon 2018, St. Gallen (1Y7A2179).jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)'
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Comment and voted of Albinfo restored + further comments
- File:3399 - Fiescheralp - Hotel Eggishorn.JPG
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Capsule Hotel Luzern 2.jpg
- a special design, but no details to be recognized. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:CDO web chambre 003.jpg
- whatever this is: no value. delete for other reasons --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This photo is of a series of 4 or 7 about the interior of the Hotel, and there is an additional OTRS/VRT permission present. -- Mdd (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- whatever this is: no value. delete for other reasons --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Davos, Berghotel Schatzalp, Kaiserzimmer.jpg- this room is conserved as it was designed for the Kaiser in 1900. No more copyright. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Dolder Grand Hotel - Denkmalgeschützte Suite.jpg
- no special interior design recognisable in this room that is protected as cultural monument. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Dolder Grand Hotel - Junior Suite mit Aussicht auf Zürich.jpg
- Some expensive furniture. besides that no threshold of originality. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Dolder Grand Hotel - Junior Suite.jpg
- same. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Etagenbett-Zimmer mit Kajüten- bzw. Stockbetten - panoramio.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4432.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4433.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4434.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. or is the folding technique for the pillows copyright protected? keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4435.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4436.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Flughafen Zürich 1K4A4437.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Gold-Zimmer mit zurueckhaltender Farbgebung und Holzboden - panoramio.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Grand Hôtel Kempinski Genève - chambre.jpg
- is this image art? mass production, copied style, no originality. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Actually this one can cause trouble, at least in Germany. [https://www.heise.de/news/Urteil-Fototapete-in-Gaestezimmer-als-Urheberrechtsverletzung-7524441.html] -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Hotel Room Mirror Selfie.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Hotelbett Gold-Zimmer - panoramio.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Ibis Styles Palexpo, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0301-Pano).jpg
- is this interior design copyright protected. I don't know. rather keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Ibis Styles Palexpo, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0312-Pano).jpg
- same as above --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Lausanne Palace - salle de bains.jpg
- no threshold of originality in this room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Le Mirador Junior Suite.jpg
- not really a special interior design recognisable - just some expensive furniture put together. no threshold of originality. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Loveroom Panorama Variante1.png
- some art, probably a reprint to the left. delete --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Schreibtisch mit iHome Soundsystem und W-LAN im Platin-Zimmer - panoramio.jpg
- is this a hotel room or somebody's home? no threshold of originality in this corner. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:WikiCon 2018, St. Gallen (1Y7A2179).jpg
- no threshold of originality in this plain room. keep --Albinfo (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
End of section restored + Further comments
- 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. -- Mdd (talk) 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. —howcheng {chat} 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. — 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)
- Kommentar The images that aren't currently struck out are of moderns buildings. In such cases I assume the architecture would be copyrighted. I don't find the whole argument that the architecture doesn't meet the threshold of originality to be compelling either since the rooms in images like File:Ibis Styles Palexpo, Le Grand-Saconnex (BL7C0312-Pano).jpg and File:Lausanne Palace - salle de bains.jpg have a fairly unique, none generic style. There's nothing un-original about them. Also, the guideline makes it clear that room interiors are excluded from FOP. So it would be ridiculous to just say "it's copyright free because room interior", like building interiors aren't subject to copyright as unique works of architecture or some nonsense. Again, images along the lines of the ones I've already linked to and others included in this DR like File:Schreibtisch mit iHome Soundsystem und W-LAN im Platin-Zimmer - panoramio.jpg are fairly unique hotel designs that aren't simply generic, run of the mill, rode side motels. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- {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)
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)
- The existence of another DR isn't a valid excuse to keep obviously 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 whoever closes this won't see the spurious, bad faithed comments and just delete the copyright infringing images anyway either. Have fun wasting everyone's time with the bloviating and personal attacks in the meantime though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)