Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse Closeup.JPG
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#France says that buildings must have a "definite artistic character". Does this one? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the architects would say so. Wknight94 talk 15:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The question is if the courts would say so :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, if I'm reading fr:Droits d'auteurs sur les œuvres architecturales en France correctly, the architects actually did bring a lawsuit over a postcard of the building many years ago... it apparently was dismissed, but only on the grounds the photo was a secondary part of the postcard. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The question is if the courts would say so :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the architects would say so. Wknight94 talk 15:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nothing special to see here Jcb (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Constructed from 1969 to 1972, France has no Commons:Freedom of Panorama, no evidence of license from architects or their heirs, and this looks too big for the Commons:De minimis exception]] 84user (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Nominator comment I did not see the earlier deletion nomination before nominating this just now. Nevertheless, I cannot understand how this can be treated as de minimis. I picked this image while looking through Category:Buildings in France by year of completion for images of buildings without evident permissions and picked the most prominent one. -84user (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
More nominator commentary This page 5 from number 48 of Revue Auvergne Architectures linked from [1] refers to the 1980 court case. AA : Quelles sont les exceptions aux droits de l’architecte ? refers to the court of appeal and that the application was rejected au motif que cette reproduction intégrait l’œuvre des architectes sans la distinguer du reste du paysage urbain. I still do not understand this - without distinction? Could this mean that the appeal by the phototgrapher was rejected? The answer to the section just above, AA : Comment se répartissent les droits d’auteur de l’architecte et ceux du photographe ? seems clearer and says that the photographer must obtain the architect's permission to make commercial use of the image: Le photographe doit obtenir son autorisation ou celle de ses ayant-droits pour prendre des clichés dès lors qu’il veut en faire un usage commercial. -84user (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yet more? Guide pratique du droit d'auteur: utiliser en toute légalité : textes, photos, films, musiques, Internet + protéger ses créations by Anne-Laure Stérin, ISBN 9782840014058, page 196 refers to a 27 November 1990 appeal which decided a postcard seller did not require the architect's permission because the tower was not photographed in isolation mais dans son cadre matériel qui ne fait l'objet d'aucune protection. So, if a photograph of a work includes its surroundings it is Ok? A kind of de minimis for France? Page 194 of the same book gives examples of cases lost when using images without the architect's permission (Géode and Arche de la Défense). The next paragraph starts Tout cliché du stade de France, then lists several well-known structures and ends with "ne peut être utlisé qu'après accord de l'architecte." -84user (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete The image was kept last time because the building is "nothing special", but I doubt if a French court would dismiss an architect-designed building in this way. The building is clearly the main (and only) subject of the photo. --Simonxag (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC
Delete An iconic landmark of the 14e, this has a definite artistic character, and photos of it do fall under France's FoP rules. Courcelles (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: original building, no FOP in France, De minimis non applicable. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
