Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monuments and memorials in Moscow

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:Monuments and memorials in Moscow

All images contain an artwork that are protected by copyright. Not COM:FOP, see COM:FOP#Russia. Wrong licensing. OTRS is missing.

Andrey Korzun (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, I didn't realize that FOP doesn't apply here (File:1973 Gedenkteken kosmonauten (detail) Moskou.jpg, File:1973 Gedenkteken kosmonauten1 Moskou.jpg and File:1973 Gedenkteken kosmonauten2 Moskou.jpg) Gouwenaar (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Files File:Monument to the heroes of the World War I. Moscow.jpg and File:Monument to the heroes of the World War I. Vladimir Putin.jpg are from site http://kremlin.ru and licensed under {{Kremlin.ru}} --Andreykor (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not cancel copyright of sculptors. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have OTRS for all OTRS files www.kremlin.ru without exceptions. And hereFile:Monument to the heroes of the World War I. Vladimir Putin.jpg the monument is not the main object of the photo, the main object is Vladimir Putin. --Andreykor (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the site www.kremlin.ru had the right to publish the photograph under a free license. I think they made a mistake. Of course, the main subject in the photo — it's the president. But the statue is too noticeable to apply the principle of Commons:De minimis. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the official website of the President of Russia violates the rights of sculptors. You need evidence for such a serious charge. --Andreykor (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think www.kremlin.ru are working ordinary people, not saints. People could make a mistake. Maybe I am mistaken. Just seems to me doubt about the freedom these files, and I propose to discuss them. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Files RIAN archive... are from RIA Novosti and licensed under {{RIAN-license}} --Andreykor (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not cancel copyright of sculptors. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Note that {{RIAN-license}} and {{Kremlin.ru}} cover the license for the images. That license is not at issue here. The problem here is that in order to keep these we need a license from the creators of the works, or their heirs. Neither the Kremlin Press Office nor RIAN can give that license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1 (maybe for admins): Do we have categories or labels for closed deletion discussions, such as "Files deleted for FoP in Russia", so that they can be restored if the law changes? We do something similar for Category:Files deleted under the URAA and I think we sometimes do the same when a file is deleted until a certain year because of known copyright date. --Closeapple (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the answer to this: probably Category:Russian FOP cases/deleted (non-architectural). (I still can't remember where the year-based general copyright cases go, though.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closeapple, nobody cares about proper file deletion and adding files to the Russian FOP cases/deleted category here (I think that less than 20% of deleted files go there), let alone providing years and other relevant information. Just transfer files to the Russian Wikipedia or another project that will use them and forget about Wikimedia Commons as an image repository. --Alexander (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: Do we know whether the copyright for certain monuments have been transferred to the Russian government? If the monument's copyright is now owned by the Russian government, then perhaps a license from Kremlin.ru or RIA Novosti is sufficient to license both the monument and the photograph. --Closeapple (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Q1) Yes, we generally track deletions by year of copyright expiration, if known, and by reason -- when the Russian law changed with respect to architecture, the undeletion of files was massive.

(Q2) I have seen a lot of Russian FOP cases and I have never seen a case where anyone thought that the artist had transferred the copyright to the government. Also, the two templates cover image copyrights -- even if the Russian government did, for some reason, own the copyrights to the art, the two press offices would certainly not have the authority to license them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to know, what is FOP ???

Second I would like to read a rationale for deletion of File:MAMoskauAstronautenDM.jpg, because of my curiousness.

Afterwards we can discuss, although deletion of the photo doesn't derange me. Greetings --Ziegler175 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FOP = Freedom of panorama, see Commons:Freedom of panorama. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the monument in your image, like all the other monuments in this DR, has a copyright, which is owned by the creator of the monument. Your photograph is a derivative work and therefore infringes on that copyright. It cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the creator or his heirs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh - thank you very much, deletion then is ok! --Ziegler175 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monuments and memorials in Moscow

Files in Category:Monuments and memorials in Moscow

Navigation menu

Search