Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Impuls Arena

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:Impuls Arena

[edit]

FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, these are taken from a place (inside the stadium) that is not publicly-accessible (a fee would be charged for admittance) and therefore are not covered by German FOP. Two are taken from the air and are also not covered.

LGA talkedits 02:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works of architecture are covered by German copyright LGA talkedits 11:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep @LGA: Please understand what FOP means in general. You are right, German FOP does not apply for these pictures, but still there is no problem with the photos as there are no or hardly any (→ De Minimis) copyright-protected parts in these pictures. The interior architecture of a usual football stadium cannot be considered protected when not having concrete indications (such as court decisions). Yellowcard (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LGA: Yes. Works of architecture are covered per § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 UhrG. However, it's a requirement that there has to be a "geistige Schöpfung" (roughly translated with "intellectual creation") per § 2 Abs. 2 UrhG that limits Abs. 1 in its applicability. According to several German court decisions (Supreme Court decisions included), usual works of architecture are not protected. You have to individually reason what is speacial in each picture. Mass deletions are not possible with your arguments. Yellowcard (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to strike the filenames of those images which show nothing copyrightable. IMO, the 2 aerial shots merit some discussion about whether the roof design has originality (Schöpfungshöhe) or not.
Also: I have removed a personal attack against the nominator. Please stay on topic. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I think, that crossing the files was precipitate. All these photos, including the crossed ones, show enough copyrightable architecture. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that the level for copyrightability (COM:TOO) in Germany is rather high. --Túrelio (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio Please revert the "Crossing" - there is more than enough copyrightable architecture on display in all of the images, it is all custom designed quite specifically for this stadium. LGA talkedits 12:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need to revert Túrelio's edit... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@LGA: Could you please eventually start to CONCRETELY point out WHAT elements (I mean, you state there's "enough") are supposed to be copyrighted? Thanks a lot. Yellowcard (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All architecture is copyrightable, the only time that I am aware of architecture has not been afforded protection is in relation to prefabricated mass produced houses and not to independently designed sports stadiums, all of the elements you see in these images, the roof, the stands everything was custom designed with this stadium and this client in mind and is therefore copyright to the architect. LGA talkedits 13:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@LGA: You're wrong. Please consider that German Urheberrecht applies here. The roof might be debatable (see Túrelio), the stands for sure are not copyrighted. Please respect the facts, see opinions (for keeping the images) of experienced users above. "All architecture is copyrightable" – that might be true for US or whatever country's laws, but not according to the German Urheberrechtsgesetz. Yellowcard (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in short, as I don’t have much time now. Per § 2 Absatz 1 Nr. 4, Absatz 2[1] of copyright law of Germany (UrhG), which is primarily applicable here due to the location of the building, buildings (or parts of them) are copyrightable only if they are a work of art (Baukunst) above threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe or Gestaltungshöhe).[2]
  • Whether something qualifies as a “work of art” needs to be evaluated individually, of course. Nevertheless, § 2 Absatz 2 UrhG[3] clearly states that to be copyrightable per this law, a work needs to be “a personal intellectual creation”. Further qualifiers, as used in legal literature: it needs to be “clearly above the average” of comparable buildings.[4][5]; “individuality does not equal originality“[6]. Other refs: [7],[8],[9]. All my references are in German and IANAL, sorry.
  • Now, applied to the above listed images, I am still convinced that they show nothing copyrightable, except possibly #6&7. --Túrelio (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the stadium design is a "personal intellectual creation" can not be up for debate, it clearly is; and we are talking about an custom design, created for this tenant, we are not dealing with a mass produced chair, office block or house. LGA talkedits 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity you keep repeating yourself instead of dealing with the arguments other users bring into this discussion based on publications. As Túrelio said before: Individuality is not originality. You say that each stadium is individual. That's fine. It doesn't say too much about the copyright protection due to German law, though, as the threshold of originality must be reached; this is not only reasoned with individuality. Yellowcard (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It seems that COM:FOP#Germany doesn't apply unless the camera is located in a public place, and it seems that places high up in the sky or inside a location which requires an entrance fee do not count as public places. The threshold of originality for applied art seems to be quite low, as established e.g. here. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in your 1st statement about FOP, though it isn't an issue here. However, I have to question your analogy of a designer chair (image) to a complex building. I can easily see quite some originality in this chair, but not in the discussed arena. --Túrelio (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1, that's two completely different things. I meanwhile feel honestly bothered by Stefan4's quotes and links to court decision that don't fit to the deletion requests at all. I only can speak for German UrhG and this deletion requests are senseless. Please close. Yellowcard (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom A.Savin 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Impuls Arena

[edit]

per Gnom and H-stt in this discussion in German-language Wikipedia: This stadium is a work of architecture protected by copyright; freedom of panorama in Germany doesn't cover aerial photography, so aerial / drone photos of this stadium can't be kept. Though as mentioned in COM:FOP Germany, a regional court (Landgericht) in Frankfurt am Main ruled "that it is allowed to photograph copyrighted works even from the airspace and to use the resulting images for commercial purposes, provided that the works are in public spaces" in 2020, but apparently, a higher court (Oberlandesgericht Hamm) ruled differently since then (maybe H-stt can elaborate on that and update COM:FOP Germany accordingly). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gelsenkirchen - Photographs of Arne Müseler (Hamm decision).

Gestumblindi (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: Ich sehe keinerlei SH bei der Gestaltung des Daches. Das ist so simpel wie nur möglich gestaltet. Bitte begründen, wo da die SH sein soll.
Außerdem wären davon unzählige Luftaufnahmen betroffen. Das wäre eine Grundsatzfrage, die besser erstmal grundsätzlich geklärt werden sollte, statt hier vorschnell ein Exempel zu statuieren. -- Chaddy (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist etwas ungünstig, die Diskussion parallel auf zwei Seiten zu führen. Den Ausführungen zur Schöpfungshöhe, die h-stt gerade hier gemacht hat, würde ich mich anschliessen. M.E. muss aber jeder Fall für sich betrachtet werden, ich würde diesen LA also auch nicht als "Exempel" betrachten, sondern eben eine Einzelfalldiskussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Das finde ich allerdings auch. Hätte man vermeiden können, indem man mit dem LA noch etwas abwartet. Die Diskussion auf UF hat erstmal gelangt...
Zu den Ausführungen hab ich mich drüben geäußert (@abarbeitender Admin: bitte auch die Diskussion drüben berücksichtigen).
Ja, das sind natürlich immer Einzelfallentscheidungen. So ist das bei den U-Bahnstationen aber auch. Und trotzdem ist es auch eine Grundsatzfrage, weil so quasi alle Luftaufnahmen von Gebäuden, die noch nicht alt genug sind, betroffen sind. -- Chaddy (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn man ihnen Schöpfungshöhe zuspricht. Die sehe ich hier zwar, du siehst sie nicht, das ist nun also zu diskutieren... Gestumblindi (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated COM:FOP Germany. And yes, the vast majority of aerial photography from Germany has to go, if modern buildings are the center of the image. Only those buildings, where the copyright has expired, where the modern building is just one of many in the picture or the building is extremely simple, we can keep the picture. And with extremely simple I mean exactly that. The public toilet building on a highway rest station was declared protected, the box shaped toilet building of an public inn in Bavaria is even a listed building, because the proportions of the windows are considered typical for the time of construction de:Waldwirtschaft Großhesselohe. --h-stt !? 14:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that buildings like merely functional agricultural sheds or typical warehouses / storage buildings (basically boxes with no aesthetical aspirations whatsoever) would still be below the threshold of originality, but buildings like this stadium do aspire to a certain aesthetic appeal, see for example this article published when it opened: "Das Stadion selbst ist ein architektonisch ansprechendes Gebäude (...)", an "architecturally appealing building". Gestumblindi (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In dem Absatz geht es aber nur um Sicht, Akustik und interne Infrastruktur. Zur äußeren Form - und nur um die geht es bei FOP - heißt es: "das Dachtragwerk hingegen ist eine Stahlkonstruktion mit Fertigbauteilen". Man könnte vielleicht darüber diskutieren, ob die an Lochkarten erinnernden Fenster an der Eingangsfront Schöpfungshöhe aufweisen (eher nicht, das sieht man an jedem zweiten Bürogebäude-Neubau heutzutage), aber solche Konstruktionen sind weder "architektonisch ansprechend" noch ragen sie "aus der Masse des alltäglichen Bauschaffens" hervor (s.u., OLG Karlsruhe). Chianti (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete because at this point I’m assuming German FOP only exists on alternate Thursdays in November if they aren’t public holidays except in Bavaria where it’s exclusively Wednesdays in September Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? -- Chaddy (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The questions we have to answer here are difficult, but not that complicated. First question: Does German freedom of panorama apply? If yes, we keep the pictures. Second question: If the answer to the first question is no and German FoP doesn't apply, is this building above the threshold of originality (TOO)? If no, we keep the pictures, as they then don't need FoP. Now, Chaddy and Ralf who argue for keeping the pictures both argue with the TOO. They don't argue that FoP applies, so I assume thet they concur with the assumption that FoP isn't applicable for aerial/drone photography in Germany. So, I'd say that the state of this discussion is: No FoP, but maybe (I think otherwise) not meeting TOO. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are difficult, and complicated. Because TOO is meaningless guesswork (how the crap do I know if this stadium is “artistic”?) and German FoP law only applies to, basically, one very specific situation (street-level photography of permanent installations in completely unrestricted public areas). So yes, I’d say that the stadium is above TOO because it’s not some mass-produced, purely utilitarian industrial building and also that FoP obviously doesn’t apply Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icxh kann hier keinerlei SH sehen. --Ralf Roletschek 08:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Ich auch nicht, und das OLG Karlsruhe sieht es ebenso: "... individuellen Züge, die das Bauwerk als persönlich geistige Schöpfung qualifizieren" bzw. "nicht nur das Ergebnis eines rein handwerklichen oder routinemäßigen Schaffens darstellt, sondern dass es aus der Masse des alltäglichen Bauschaffens herausragt" [10]. Hier nicht der Fall, das ist eindeutig eine bautechnisch bedingte Konstruktion, vergleichbar mit dem seriellen Baustil einer Fabrikhalle. Da ist überhaupt keine persönliche geistige Schöpfung erkennbar - nicht, was "aus der Masse des alltäglichen Bauschaffens herausragt". Chianti (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nomination. (Perhaps keep File:Impuls Arena 090726 06 - panoramio.jpg, File:Impuls Arena 0909 02 - panoramio.jpg and File:Stadion 1106 - panoramio.jpg as DM.) --Krd 10:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Bitte lies mal Chiantis Kommentar. Der fasst es auf Basis eines Gerichtsurteils gut zusammen. -- Chaddy (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, most since aerial photographs are not covered by FOP and German standards for DM are strict (kept three per Krd). --Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very wrong decision. Chianti’s input unfortunately was completely ignored. This stadium is not copyrightable at all. -- Chaddy (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Impuls_Arena&oldid=837378535"