Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion debate 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:Dome of the Reichstag (building)[edit]

Is this place public?

Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with German law. However, these photos are taken in a German government building. I believe that that is considered a public place under US law.

Plus, ask yourself: would the German government ever ask Wikipedia to remove pictures of their capitol building??? The law seems in place to prevent people from spying on other people's private property - not to prevent photos of tourist attractions. --ThePlaz (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The Reichstag Cupola is a huge tourist attraction and provides observation all over Berlin. If that doesn't count as "public", idk what does. Fry1989 eh? 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, public access is free, which is why you see so many people there in the photos. BrokenSphere (Talk) 14:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Agree with Fry1989. --Danny (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I'm the author of one of these pictures. I'm certain this Dome is both "dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible". It's a famous tourist spot. Dodoïste (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons page on FOP (I have already linked to it) says "“Public,” here, is not to be understood in a public-law sense" and "In the literature, station halls, subway stations or departure halls at airports that are publicly-accessible are nevertheless mostly not assumed to satisfy the “public” criterion due to their lack of dedication to the public." Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Further, I kindly advice to make such mass DR less "massive" as they can become confusing for the admin due to their dimension. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate 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:Dome of the Reichstag (building)[edit]

Same issue as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Reichstag (dome) - Exterior. Copyrighted architectural work, only photos of which taken from the street are covered by Panorama Freedom, whereas any free licensed distribution of interior views needs a permission by Foster.

A.Savin 15:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just saw that there already was a DR on files in the same category and for the same reason. However, reading COM:FOP#Germany and knowing the procedure of how to get to this place I cannot follow the argumentation of previous "keep" voters. Even for actually permamently & free accessible places like train stations etc. it is at least controversial whether they may be considered as a public place. If you want, however, to visit the gallery and the dome of the Reichstag, you have to: 1) register via internet days before (or even weeks, if you want to get there at a comfortable daytime); 2) show your ID card at the entrance; 3) pass a security check like by checking-in at airport. Frankly, I doubt that a German court would declare *such* a place as public place in the sense of the Germany UrhG. --A.Savin 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The measures you describe are in no way intentended to deny access to the public in any way, but are intended on the contrary to faciltate access to the public in a high security area with heavy public traffic. So a court would see no reason to deem *this* place not public. --Wuselig (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what makes you that sure about what a court would see. Maybe you read COM:FOP#Germany thoroughly, especially its first passage. --A.Savin 21:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you doubt and argue with restrictions that are no restrictions but only crowd management and security meassures. So yes, I contest that your doubt is better than mine, and I have no idea what makes you so sure why a court should rule in your way. The dome is "dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible", so where do you see a contradiction to COM:FOP#Germany? --Wuselig (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see at least a significant question mark, because "property of the state" does not necessarily mean "public place", and Commons has its Precautionary principle. Similar images already have been deleted, so, btw, we should be consequent, or discuss it all at COM:UD. --A.Savin 08:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Savin is taking the precautonary principle much too far. There must be some reason why Foster is not known to ever have tried to cash in for such views, probably simply because he is not at all keen on it. No harm has been done by these images or is likely to ever emerge, so Symbol keep vote.svg Keep them all. One could try and ask Foster for a permission, though. That would settle it once and for all. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foster is not known to ever have tried to cash in => COM:PRP # 3, I guess? --A.Savin 09:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read quite to the to the end of my posting. I think this cupola is important enough as one of the best-known symbols of Germany and Berlin that we should take action. I'd propose a formal question by Wikimedia to Sir Norman, to get some sort of permission. --FA2010 (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - I cannot find "your posting" you're talking about? --A.Savin 11:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only for info without voting for something: Pictures within the Dome are not public in meaning of the Copyright. So, Freedom of Panorama (FOP) cannot be used to argument for keeping. For buildings, only exterior-view can be explicitly used for FOP, interior-war is not free to use. That it is a high-known building and tourist can on some time visit it, is not an argument. But we should look carefully: Files like File:Reichstag-Kuppel-147.jpg have no threshold of originalty, so there is no need to delete (for 1, 2 … not all files I checked, too) for copyright violation. --Quedel (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


As per A.Savin, it is disputed whether the interior of the Reichstag can be considered a freely accessible public location. Unless we know in certainty, with credible, written, textual evidence proving that the interior is covered by FOP, we default to COM:PCP. -FASTILY 23:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]