Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tartu Landmarks 09.jpg

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.

File:Tartu Landmarks 09.jpg

No commercial freedom of panorama in Estonia. Statue from 1998 so it is not public domain yet. QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph of the Tartu City Government Building in Tartu Square is the primary subject of the photograph and should not be deleted due to the necessary inclusion in the foreground of an image of a statue lacking focus, light and contrast. Also, should you still consider it necessary to progress the deletion process in this instance, can you please provide the name and preferably contact details of the artist so permission for posting on Wikimedia Commons can be requested. Thank You! SM:!) (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The burnden of finding that information is on the uploader.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is relatively simple to delete the work of others that may have taken many hours to create (without any intention of infringing copyright). Technically the onus is legitimately on the photographer\poster to ensure compliance with copyright but for tourists visiting countries this is almost impossible unless the work has a plaque attached, preferably with contact details. Morally the onus is on those deleting the work of others to contact the artist\sculptor to confirm their wishes in respect of copyright enforcement as many artists, when contacted, actually welcome a larger appreciation of their work, especially in an essentially non-commercial environment such as Wikimedia Commons.

With regard to this specific photograph\image it is questionable whether it does infringe any copyright given it is not the main subject of the photograph which is the building and the fact that this building cannot be photographed from this perspective without inclusion of the sculpture as well as the fact the sculpture in the image lacks focus\detail.

Please address all of the points expressed above - thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how long it took you to make this, either prove it is a free work or say bye-bye to it. You do not deserve any special treatment exemption from copyright just because you used your precious time to make it. Morally and per rules the burden is on the uploader to prove their work is free.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and regardless of your particular interpretation of what may be morally appropriate, you have still not addressed the point that I have repeated with regard to the application of non-FOP, which is the sculpture in question is NOT "the main subject" of the image presented so FOP does NOT apply in this instance. This is not a request for "special treatment" but is a request for fair and objective application of Wikimedia Copyright Rules (which do not provide for blanket deletions irrespective of the prominence in the image of the artwork concerned). For the third time, can you please address this point - thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. Estonia has NO Freedom of Panorama, not just for statues but for buildings too.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps English is not your first language but if you re-read my reply it should become evident that I fully understand that "Estonia has NO Freedom of Panorama". That said, and understanding that buildings in Estonia may also be subject to 'non-FOP rules', in this case the building is in the shade and partially obscured by the fountain discussed so if this building image is to be deleted then it would appear you are declaring that nearly every photograph\image taken outside in towns and cities of Estonia must now be deleted from Wikimedia Commons unless they have been granted specific authority for posting from the copyright-holder. I would respectfully suggest that you consult with higher level W-C Administrators before proceeding further in this regard. Thank you for your full consideration of this reply and perhaps your future endeavours to help persuade the pertinent authority in Estonia of the many merits in adopting FOP. --SM:!) (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Scotch Mist it is not the building of the Tartu City Government, but still acceptable here. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raeplats hansapäevadel 2014.jpg for my input about the building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your objective and logical assessment and informative comment. That said, is there anything that can be done to convince the authorities in the ex-USSR Baltic States to appreciate the merits of FOP and embrace it? --SM:!) (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scotch Mist be ready to be disappointed, the side of public art authors (architects and artists) seem to prevail in these three Baltic states as opposed to content creators and Internet users. I don't see the fruit of the efforts made by Estonia-based Wikimedians. Even if their 2014-2017 advocacy was recently listed at meta:Copyright Repository#Copyright Reform Campaign Resources (Sortable Table), there has been no success in removing non-commercial and incidental ("not the main subject") restrictions in the Estonian FoP. This article by the Estonian parliament apparently tells us that despite majority support of many stakeholders to amend Estonian FoP, there is minority but strong opposition from authors (architects and artists). So I do not see Estonia going forward to Internet era (in which public artworks can be freely distributed and shared on Wikimedia, Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms even under commercial CC licenses), and will remain in backwards just like France, Romania, and Ukraine, where architects and artists control the appearance and images of public spaces. No news from Latvia and Lithuania, but I think the Wikimedians in both countries have no intention to reform their FoP legal rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to outline the current situation with regard to FOP in the Baltic states - at least it is encouraging to know that there are others with a wider perspective on this subject! --SM:!) (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I disagree with the DM claim - if you view this image at the highest resolution then it is quite clear. If it was uploaded at 600x480 it would be a different story. --Gbawden (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]