Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs of old stained glass windows at Bregenz Pfarrkirche

Photographs of old stained glass windows at Bregenz Pfarrkirche

• File:Bregenz Pfarrkirche Mariahilf Fenster Verkündigung.jpg
• File:Bregenz Pfarrkirche Mariahilf Fenster Christi Geburt.jpg
• File:Bregenz Pfarrkirche Mariahilf Fenster Mariä Geburt.jpg

The pictures are not in the public domain in the U.S., because they are photographs of old stained glass windows in a church. As of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag##Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book the original work has to be old enough to have entered the public domain, and it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution, so PD-self can't be added by the photographer. Also Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States explicitly excludes art work. The window designs are in two of the photos completely by Robin Christian Andersen (and he completed the window in File:Bregenz Pfarrkirche Mariahilf Fenster Christi Geburt.jpg). He died in 1969, so the photos can't be PD-old-50 either, and so they have no license at all. --Geitost ^diskusjon 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bregenz is in Austria, not in the United States. (Das ist doch wirklich albern. Keine einzige der zigtausend europäischen Skulpturen, die wir aufgrund der deutschen Panoramafreiheit hochgeladen haben, ist in in den USA in der Public Domain. Wenn wir damit anfangen, können wir die Commons gleich ganz schließen.) --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And removing my license PD-self for the photo (!) is vandalism! --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The servers are not in Austria, but in the U.S. And each file on Commons must also be legal in the U.S. Otherwise, why is a license PD-old-80 or PD-old-70 not enough, if the files are from Europe? And why is there a license Not-PD-US-URAA, when the files are ok in Austria/Germany and other states? Every file must be legal in the U.S. and in the land where the file has been taken. And that's not the case here. And PD-self could only be added if the photographer is also the designer of the window, cause in the U.S., there's no FOP for artwork in buildings. Why should it be vandalism, when the license just doesn't fit and the designer is another person which isn't dead for 50 years? And the window is no sculpture at all, it's two-dimensional. It's like a photograph of a painting in a building which also can't have PD-self if the photograph isn't taken by the painter himself. See also this part of Commons:FOP#United States:

• „For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork.“

So, it's an artwork, permanently installed in a public place, and there's no FOP exception in the U.S. that applies to this. Even if it's legal in Austria, it's not for Commons. Every file must have a license for the U.S. and it's not PD-self in the U.S.

Furthermore, as you see here, the paragraph in the Austrian law which says that these pictures are legal in Austria has been formulated in 2003 (BGBl. I Nr. 32/2003, PDF), this text has been formulated in 2003:

• „5. Werke der Baukunst nach einem ausgeführten Bau oder andere Werke der bildenden Künste nach Werkstücken, die dazu angefertigt wurden, sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort zu befinden, zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten, durch optische Einrichtungen öffentlich vorzuführen, durch Rundfunk zu senden und der Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung zu stellen;“

So I think the pictures weren't legal until 2003 in Austria either. This means, that also Not-PD-US-URAA applies to these works cause then they weren't legal in Austria on the URAA date. --Geitost ^diskusjon 01:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We have tens of thousands of works that would not be in the PD in the US, but are in the PD in the countries where we photographed them: all modern sculptures in Europe, for example. If you want to delete them all, make a point in the Village Pump, and don't start with deleting licenses of three randomly chosen files. We have to get rid of the page Commons:FOP then, because all this would be utterly meaningless for us then. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC) PS: Since I more than clearly stated in the description that the PD-self is for the photo only (by Source: own work (own photograph)), your point is very weak.

Template:PD-self just is wrong and can't be added, it says:

• „NB: Please do not use it for other people's images. Only use it if you, the uploader, are the sole copyright holder of the work and that no works copyrighted by other people are included in it.“

Please note that sole copyright holder is bold in this template. Even if there's FOP in Austria for taking images of such photos, the person who created the window doesn't lose the copyright of his own creation just because anyone takes a photo of it. (That would mean in analogy, I would get the copyright of Mona Lisa if it's permanently placed in a church in Austria and I'm taking a normal photo of it which only shows the two-dimensional picture and nothing else. Then I could earn a lot of money if I so easily got the copyright of the picture. That's very funny just to think of.) So he is and remains the copyright holder to the window design also after his death (no matter how many people take photos of the window) and he isn't dead for 50 years, neither for 70 years. His heirs are the copyright holders of the window design for 70 years after his death in Austria, after that it would get into the public domain because of its age, FOP hasn't anything to do with the copyright of the design. So PD-self can't fit, because you are not and will never be the copyright holder of the window design, and the work you photographized is copyrighted (also with FOP it remains copyrighted, it doesn't lose the copyright with FOP). PD-self just is wrong and can't be added to these kind of photographs. If you add PD-self it means you are the copyright holder of the window design (of which you took a photo) and nobody else has a copyright to the window design. That's what the template says. Please take the template away, it's just wrong there, so it can't be vandalism to take a wrong license template away. --Geitost ^diskusjon 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And it's right that the template PD-self can't be set at any photo of any sculpture or painting if the photographer isn't the author of the sculpture/painting. PD-self is just for photographies of things which doesn't have any copyright themselves. Buildings normally aren't copyrighted, but if they are copyrighted in a state, then PD-self would also be wrong there. Then another template would have to be chosen that doesn't say that the photographer is the sole copyright holder. And yes, I think there are lots of pictures here which have wrong license templates. But that doesn't mean, that they all would have to be deleted, but the wrong templates should be removed. Perhaps other templates fit to the photos, I don't know. But {{FOP}} would have to be placed to all of them which says:

• „The subject of this image is believed to be protected by copyright.“.

So, you see, FOP means, the images all are protected by copyright. And many of the old stained glass windows in churches are that old that the protection isn't there anymore. But that doesn't mean that the photographers are getting the copyrights. --Geitost ^diskusjon 18:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand a lot about copyright: of course everybody can only grant the rights that he owns himself. If someone who gives a source as "own photograph" gives "PD-self" as a license, then of course it can only apply to the photograph. Anything else is so way beyond any possiblity of the laws that it's outright ridiculous to assume that. It would mean that we have to remove all "PD-self" templates from all photographs of modern buildings in those countries with FOP. Nobody misunderstands these templates, especially if described in extense like I did: FOP for the work, PD-self for the photo. But for those who do misunderstand that, I'll make it even more clear right now. Is it possible that you try and find another playground than the Commons? With a total of 11 images uploaded but maing such a fuss about a perfectly clearly licensed works? --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC) PS: Or did I do anything wrong so that you chose three of my >20.000 uploaded photos to make such a point? If so, please say so, then we can try and resolve such problems.

See also the long discussion at COM:FOP#Validity of Freedom of Panorama for artworks on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted: Unclear copyright status Nobody seems to be able to prove, with tangible evidence, that the files are indeed freely licensed in the US, where the Wikimedia Servers are situated. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)