User talk:Dsblack
The file File:Oslo-City-Hall-grotesques.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, no freedom of panorama for 3D artwork in Norway
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- If this file really isn't used, I have no objection to the deletion.
- However, I'm not sure the "no freedom of panorama for 3D artwork in Norway" is a valid reason. According to the wikipedia article, at
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Norway#Freedom_of_panorama :
- A work can be depicted when it is permanently placed on or near a public space or road or similar publicly accessible place. However, this does not apply when the work is clearly the main subject, and the reproduction is used commercially. Buildings can be depicted freely.[2018 §31]
- The point, as I understand it, is to not allow photos of the objects (as the main subject of the photo) to be sold (without the creator's permission). But you can obviously take photos of the objects for yourself, hence the "and the reproduction is used commercially". I believe that generally extends to sharing on social media -- that's certainly how it is handled in practice. So unless wikipedia is a "commercial" entity, I think it is still legally allowed. "Commercial" generally means "for profit", and wikipedia is specifically not for profit, correct? It's intended as a free reference.
- I would be interested in hearing more specific legal interpretation of that, and/or if wikipedia has an official policy on this situation, since I'm sure it must have come up before.
- I also wonder if this law is allowed ex post facto, since it says the law was in 2018 and I posted these back in 2006, but I think these are based on the US copyright laws that kept being extended due to Disney's legal actions, so there were probably similar laws in effect before that that just didn't yet extend to 70 years.
- But, again, if admins want to delete it because it's unused, that's fine with me.
- The "File usage" section does say, "No pages on the English Wikipedia use this file (pages on other projects are not listed)." I don't know how to check other languages or "projects", but I'd by moderately surprised if it was used elsewhere.
- As a side note, I also tried to find the artist, and the most I could find was the architects of the building. They died in 1958 and 1961. Since this law applies up through 70 years after the death of the last surviving "author", that means it would be allowed even commercially in another 7 years (and change). Obviously, that doesn't change anything for right now. Besides, I'd get a better photo to do that anyway; these were taken with a 1600x1200 digital camera on a cloudy day in 2003. Dsblack (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)