Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ул. Стойкости от пр. м. Жукова.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.

Unfree, no freedom of panorama in Russia. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment. What is unfree? The street? The sequence of coloured stripes? The cars? --AVRS (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Buildings. Artem Karimov (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, trivial architecture. AndyVolykhov (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. There is no reason to believe that the buildings are the main subject of the image (which is as a matter of fact the street), thus freedom of panorama has no relation to this image.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Street consists of roads and buildings. Buildings are the main subject of this image. Besides, no commercial usage is allowed by the Russian law. Licensing policy forbids non-commercial clauses. Artem Karimov (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you do not interpret the law correctly. According to your interpretation, any photo with even a tiny piece of a post-1942 building in Russia can not be uploaded on Commons. This is clearly incorrect. If you have doubts, please consult your lawyer.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually any work of architecture apart from simple concrete blocks cannot be uploaded here. Only then de minimis exceptions may apply. I am uncertain about their existence but I won't argue about it. Artem Karimov (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not talking about De minimis (though it can be discussed for the standard block series). What I am talking about is the following. Imagine I have a window looking out to the Intercession Chuch in Fili, which is PD. My house is not PD. I take a picture of the church from my window, and I still have the window frame in the picture (which I for whatever reason do not want / can not remove). Your reasoning then says that the file can not be uploaded since the window frame is a part of the building, and thus is protected by FoP.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cases are different. We have a broad panorama of non-trivial buildings here. Not an image of PD object through the window. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they are actually the same. We do not have dedicated pictures of the buildings, we just have some details of the buildings which happened to be around the street. None of the building is at the center of the picture, none of them is even fully taken in the picture. This is not FoP.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Buildings and the road are both primary subjects. Every single one. Therefore copyright restriction apply. Artem Karimov (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are not. This is just your imagination, that has no relation to the law whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Дома не являются основным элементом фото. Фотографировали не дома, а автомобили и дорогу. Дома случайно попали на фото, поэтому здесь нет нарушения АП. Другое дело, что на фото попали люди и номера машин. Вот права этих людей могут быть нарушены.--Anatoliy (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Renomination #1

Renominating as the closing admin failed to give coherent argument for doing so and asserted the "majority" instead (doing so is discouraged). Artem Karimov (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: all users, who wrote comments, say that image should be kept. I think that decsion of Yann was correct. Do not renominate image again if there are no new reasons for deletion.--Anatoliy (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]