Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hotel rooms in Switzerland

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:Hotel rooms in Switzerland

[edit]

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

[edit]

End of section restored + Further comments

[edit]

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]
Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hotel rooms in Switzerland
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]

I take no position whatsoever on any copyright issue. So your purely here to concern troll and forum shop then? Good to know. I doubt the closer will care about the other DR and factor it in to this. Especially since they aren't at all similar and your obviously forum shopping. If you really think the intimidation tactics are going to be effective be my guest and give it a try though. My guess is they won't be, at least not on my end, but whatever. You do you. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Troll. Forum shopping. Intimidating. Hmm. I have posted, and signed, on both requests, referring to the other one. I am being open and honest with all editors on both requests. I don't think I have threatened you in any way. I have called attention to your edits. You feel that having to be responsible for your own edits is intimidating?
This link to the other request seems to work, too, but I'll repeat it. It's been fun, but the outside world calls. Have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC) it[reply]
Intentionally posting about another discussion somewhere that you know has a high likely hood of people who are sympathy to your position is forum shopping. It doesn't matter that you signed the comments or are "being open and honest with all editors on both requests." It's still forum shopping, period. There's zero reason you post a link to the other discussion here except to try and attract people to it who would be favorable to the outcome you want since they have literally nothing to do with each other. Except that this is a good place to shop for votes.
As to why I said it was intimidation, because your clearly hounding me and my edits by doing it. You obviously joined this discussion for no other reason except to inhibit my work. You have no experience in the area, you don't participate in DRs, you've never edited in the same areas as me, I've never interacted with you in my life before now, hell you didn't even vote on this. The only reason your here is because you have an issue with me nominating some images for deletion. Your participation in both DRs is purely an attempt to cause me more problems and distress because of it. So 100% it's an intimidation tactic. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be posting here later. Sammy D III (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forum shopping. I think I have made it clear on both requests that I have no position on any image itself. I posted "until" there and "for now" here. I don't need any votes for specific images because I don't care. I think I have made it clear on both requests that I object to your poorly executed mass deletions. I do not think that informing somebody on one request that the person they are talking to is having the same discussion on a different request with somebody else, so that they can see the comments of somebody who shares their position, is "forum shopping". I see it as "notification". Period.
The connection is that I was looking at your posts on the other board and looked at your contribs to see if there were similar actions. I feel that there were. I used this request as an example of your actions on the other request. Then I noticed that there were far more editors there than here. So I "notified" people here.
"intimidation" and "hounding"? After the comments you have posted at both requests, I think you accusing others is, well...
"You obviously joined this discussion for no other reason except to inhibit my work". "inhibit my work". That's sort of egotistic, thinking your "work" is being "inhibited". I am "challenging" your "editing", especially your disruptive and abusive style.
I don't do Commons often, but I've been around and have some experience. Not seniority, experience. I know my way around Rf whatever, your RfD at Renault was one of the sloppiest I've seen. You clearly didn't even look at most of those images, if you did then you were un-truthful when you described them. Then you are insistent and abusive about your controversial viewpoint.
I don't know/care who you are, I would call you "they" to someone else. You made a truly noteworthy AfD at Renault, I hate all French cars ever built and yet I'm defending them. I only came here by chance, but I have a very low bully tolerance.
"cause me more problems and distress". Only your problems and distress matter, not anybody else's? Let me get my soapbox. Let's imagine that a person spends time on an photo, waits until the light is right, the whatever is in the perfect place, and is very proud of their work. They choose to let Commons use it, to share it with the world. Then some copyright geek checks it. The majority of those Renault images, despite your claim, were 4.0. Then an editor sees the image and uses it in an article. You have three editors who have made GF edits. But people come and go here, in a couple of years some are gone, some of us don't really look back. So if some adamant person chooses to RfD those images and nobody defends them then three editor's GF and possibly great work is lost.
Anybody who has been here very long knows that copyright is about as serious as it gets here. Everywhere, not just Commons. People have been doing copyright since the beginning, it's nothing new, you're nothing special. And that Renault mass RfD is just so sloppy, damn, did you check any of the images at all? I think you're counterproductive, threatening other editor's GF edits for your own personal ego.
Well, we've really made a mess here. I was only going to make the "Keep ALL...", notify the other editors. This RfD interests me even less than Renaults (shudder) but it seems that we both like to chat. I have to go now, maybe tomorrow if you want to go on. Otherwise, it's been fun, have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your poorly executed mass deletions. Which you admit caused you to "inform" people in this discussion about the other one. You clearly want both DRs to be kept because you think object to them and thank they were executed poorly. So you notified people about the DRs who you thought would help with you at making that happen. That's fine, but it's still forum shopping. Otherwise there's plenty of other DRs I'm participating in right now were you could have "informed" the people about this conversation. The only reason you didn't is because they aren't as sympathetic to your argument. Your not just notifying people though. Your notifying people in specific discussions, who have a specific slant, and for a very specific reason. Which is to derail my DRs because you think they are poor. That's pretty text book forum shopping.
I don't anything else to say about this other then that. Except it's a little rich your saying I'm nothing special as if I'm the one who made either discussion revolve around me or my opinions. The only reason either discussion has anything to do with me is because you and the people in the other DR won't stop talking about me and making personal comments. I'd love to not be involved in this. Let alone do I want to be the main topic of discussion. Just stop with the personal comments and address what the DR is actually about. I can guarantee I wouldn't be involved in either conversation at this point if you did. In no way I'm acting like I'm special by saying a comment you made about me is wrong though. I swear to god this whole thing has been one long exercise in obfuscation and projection. I think I'm at least done with my side of the discussion. I'd appreciate it if this was left there and you stopped making clearly uninformed and wrong assertions about me or how I do things. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept / Deleted: Kept most, but deleted several images. Detailed reasoning: Interior design can be copyrighted, agree. And if there is, for example, wallpaper with a copyrighted image printed on it, this is a copyright issue too - there's a recent German court decision confirming this (Discussion in German Wikipedia here), and I assume it's not very different in Switzerland. But not every interior will be copyrighted. This blanket deletion request for "Hotel rooms in Switzerland" lacks due diligence before filing the request, because every room has to be judged individually on whether the threshold of originality may be met with regard to the interior design, or the room may be old enough to be out of copyright anyway. A good example for a room where I don't see any possibly copyrightable elements is File:3399 - Fiescheralp - Hotel Eggishorn.JPG, an extremely bland, simple hotel room with standard furnishings. But I deleted the following files:

All the other images either don't show copyrightable originality of the design IMHO, or are out of copyright such as File:Davos, Berghotel Schatzalp, Kaiserzimmer.jpg (1900 design, and even then, this was nothing unusual); File:CDO web chambre 003.jpg was apparently uploaded with an OTRS permission by the hotel itself, also it's in the Château d'Ouchy and probably old enough anyway. --Gestumblindi (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Somehow, File:Lausanne Palace - salle de bains.jpg which was originally part of this DR went missing from the list. I deleted it, too, because the floral decoration of the ceiling might pass the threshold of originality. - A last addition to my closing comments: The argument that a simple hotel room may be copyrighted as part of the architecture of a copyrighted building only holds if any characteristic, (still) copyrighted parts of that architecture are visible in the image (not just plain walls etc.). Gestumblindi (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Hotel_rooms_in_Switzerland&oldid=760511748"