Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vegetatives Wachsen (Klaus-Jürgen Luckey)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Files in Category:Vegetatives Wachsen (Klaus-Jürgen Luckey)[edit]

This sculpture is located in what looks like a fenced off business park, which is also where the photographs were taken from. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama "what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public...If a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not." So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a business park, but a residential area that is separated from the main road by a fence, but can be entered from other directions freely. --Polarlys (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you look at Google Maps the statue is in the backyard of a building that houses a shipping company and a contractor. Maybe they are home based businesses, but I guess it doesn't matter since it's still private regardless. Just because someone can walk around whatever the building is into the backyard to photograph the sculpture doesn't mean it's a public place or that the photographs would qualify for FOP either. Otherwise they should have taken from the street or adjacent walkway, which they clearly weren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking a photo over a fence doesn’t rule out FOP if you could reach the artwork freely. I miss your proof why this should not be possible. The artwork is likely located on one of the park like green strips that often separate larger housing estates from thoroughfares in Hamburg and are separated from the road by a fence for the safety of children/dogs, although the entire estate is freely accessible from other places. --Polarlys (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, if the photographs were taken on the other side of the fence then they would qualify for freedom of panorama. It would be ridiculous to assume the images were taken from the road just because it's possible to photograph the statue from there though and there just isn't any evidence that's where they were taken from. Like if you look at this image it was clearly taken at ground level and the fence isn't visible in the foreground. The same goes for the rest of the images. The fence should be visible in foreground if the photographs were taken from the sidewalk though. Really, I don't think it's possible to even take ground level shots of the statue like that from the sidewalk to begin with since there's bushes in the way. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Polarlys has described the local situation correctly. I took the first two images in the list definitely from the public sidewalk on the eastern side of the main road "Elbgaustraße". There is/was a fence partially covered with plants between the lawn area around the residential buildings and this sidewalk. But the sculpture is/was clearly visible from the public sidewalk, especially during winter months. If you use a telelens in winter, you can/could take an image thats nearly unobstructed by the fence or the plants. Take a look into the EXIF-Data of my images and you find, they were taken in February with a focal length around 130 mm. I think, the other images were taken under similar circumstances. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took these pictures from the sidewalk. —Minderbinder (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you did for the reasons I've stated and the fact that you've apparently taken pictures of statues in other non-public places before, like in fenced off school grounds. And completely ingnoring the string of false statements you've made other DRs to. So really no reason to think you didn't just go on the property to take the pictures. Although I'm more willing to leave it up to whomever closes this to decide if they want to give you the benefit of the doubt or not, but there's really no reason to IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Vegetatives Wachsen (Klaus-Jürgen Luckey)[edit]

The earlier DR by Adamant1 was closed after just 15 hours as "no valid reason for deletion". That was much too early IMO, as this is not a clear-cut case, and Adamant1's argument isn't completely outlandish. Reinhard Kraasch didn't want to re-open the DR, so I'm nominating the files to allow for a longer discussion about the case and hopefully get a more detailed closing statement addressing it.

I've looked at aerial photos of the place where this sculpture is located, and it seems to me that none of the photos could have been taken from the nearby street or sidewalk, they all must have been taken by stepping onto this strip of grass where the sculpture is located. That piece of land is behind some residential building, next to a street, and apparently there are some bushes or trees between the grass and the street. The question we have to ask is is this piece of land sufficiently public as required by German fop, is there a sufficient dedication to the general public as mentioned by legal commentators (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public)? In the case of the street or the sidewalk this would quite clearly be the case. For the piece of land where the sculpture is located, one could still come to the conclusion that yes, there is a sufficient dedication to the general public, but that question should be adressed. I myself will go  Neutral here.

Rosenzweig τ 06:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll rephrase: Some of the photos could have been taken from a sidewalk as stated. Let the deciding admin be the judge of that. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like to repeat myself: all of my images were definitely taken from public ground. As stated above. The other images seem to be taken at nearly exactly the same position. By the way: I've been at the location personally and Adamant's argument IS completely outlandish, if you`ve been there only once. I am extremely annoyed that Rosenzweig is accusing me of lying. Close this silly deletion request as soon as possible --Dirtsc (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dirtsc: I have not, I repeat not accused you of lying. I have just stated that it seemed to me that the photos could not have been taken from the street. I may be wrong in that, but that was my impression. I mainly nominated these files again because DR should generally stay open at least seven days (Commons:Deletion requests) and Adamant1 clearly felt this DR was closed too early and there was still need for discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was actually going to vote to keep your images since its more plausable they were taken from the street then it is with the others. The way your acting about the whole thing really doesn't help though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder what is not clear here and why people who are not familiar with the area doubt, based on interpretations of satellite images or maps, that the sculpture can not be seen from public ground as it was photographed. The sculpture was clearly visible from public paths when I took the photos and could easily be photographed while there were no leaves on the bushes. In the above mentionend Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public is clearly stated, that "what needs to be public is the place from where the photograph is taken; it does not matter if the work itself is accessible to the public". In my opinion, the reopening of the discussion is completely unnecessary. --Dirtsc (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es geht doch nicht darum, ob das Foto von Privatgrund oder öffentlichem Grund aus aufgenommen wurde (das können wir doch gar nicht überprüfen), sondern ob der Weg oder Park "der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet" ist oder nicht. In diesem Fall handelt es sich um ein von kleinen Fußwegen durchzogenes SAGA-Gelände, da steht ganz sicher nirgendwo ein Schild "Betreten verboten". Ich gehe bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils davon aus, dass dieses Parkgelände - egal wem es gehört - öffentlich zugänglich ist, und dass es keine Rolle spielt, ob die Skulptur vom Fußweg an der Elbgaustraße aus aus aufgenommen wurde oder der Fotograf ein paar Schritte näher herangetreten ist.
Mein Eindruck ist auch, dass es hier auch gewisse kulturelle Missverständnisse im Spiel sind, indem vom US-amerikanischem Verhältnis zu Privateigentum ausgegangen wird, wo gleich jemand mit der Schrotflinte kommt, wenn man sich ein paar Meter zu weit von der Straße entfernt. Das ist hier definitiv nicht der Fall. Also noch mal: Ich sehe keinen Grund zur Löschung.
Englisch: It's obviously not about whether the photo was taken from private or public property (we can't even check that), but whether the path or park is "dedicated to the public" or not. In this case, it is a SAGA site criss-crossed by small footpaths, and there is certainly no sign saying "No trespassing" anywhere. Until proven otherwise, I assume that this park area - regardless of who owns it - is open to the public, and that it doesn't matter whether the sculpture was photographed from the footpath on Elbgaustraße or whether the photographer took a few steps closer.
My impression is also that there are certain cultural misunderstandings at play here, assuming the US relationship to private property, where someone comes with a shotgun if you move a few meters too far from the road. That is definitely not the case here. Again: I don't see a reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good, thank you. That is the kind of background information (re "dedicated to the public" or not) needed to decide such a case. --Rosenzweig τ 10:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the background information. Although just to clarify since you didn't seem to get it on your talk page, I never said this had anything to do with if the statue is on private property or not. By "private" I merely mean "not a public place." It has nothing to do with who owns the property though. As to the whole thing about it supposedly being a park area crisscrossed by small footpaths, they don't seem to exist either on OpenStreetMaps or Google. There are paths in the front of the building going up to the entrances. As well as the sidewalk next to the street on the other side of the fence. Neither one makes where the statue is a park that has footpaths around it though. Anyone can look at either Google Street View or OpenStreetMaps to see there's no paths anywhere near the statue. In fact it, doesn't even look there's a path going around the back of the building to where the statue is. Let alone do they crisscross each other. So I don't think your justification for keeping the images is valid. It would be ridiculous if the standard for what makes something a public place was simply a footpath going up to a buildings entrance. Just as a side to that, I encourage anyone to look at the Google Street View images from in front of the building on Lüdersring. Even the front is fenced off and the parking lots have swing gates baring people from entering them. So in no way is the property a public place. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On several photos (e.g. File:Skulptur von Klaus-Jürgen Luckey, Lüdersring 91, Hamburg-Lurup (1).jpg you can see in the background the more of less fenced off backside of the buildings. For me, it is also obvious that the location is not part of the properties that you have viewed from the front on Google Street Map, but a strip of land behind these properties, the green stripe I mentioned earlier. --Polarlys (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fencing for someone's patio. You can see them on the Google Satellite images. Most apartments or office flats have their own private areas in the back of the building. That doesn't make the larger backyard area completely different different property though. Regardless, if you look slightly north of there at Elbgaustraße 205 on the satellite images the property for the larger complex ends right below it and there doesn't even seem to be a way to get to the back of the property because it's blocked by the house and a fence. So the only other option would be in front of the complex on Lüdersring, which as I've said is also mostly fenced off and there's still no path going around the back. So even if where the statue is was separate property, it's still not "sufficiently dedicated" to the public enough to qualify for FOP. But I still think it's part of the complex. BTW, if you look at this Street View image there's no fence there and it's clearly part of the property the building is on, not a separate area. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Thank you for posting the StreetView image. As this is a location in germany, I didn't expected some usable street view there. ;-) This should settle the case. In the image you see the public footpath along the Elbgaustraße, behind that the fence and some plants, behind that the lawn and the sculpture. Compare the fence und the plants to the pedestrian at the left and you'll find, that there is an nearly unobstructed view from the footpath towards the sculpture. So the images qualify for freedom of panorama, as stated in my above statement. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dirtsc: You must have missed the multiple times I've said there isn't an unobstructed view from the ground where the photographs uploaded by Minderbinder seem to be taken from. Nowhere have I claimed there is no way at all to photograph the statue from the street, just not at the angle where these photographs seem to be taken from. I'm sure you get the difference. It's getting rather tiring having to repeat myself over and over because no one on your side of this wants to use an ounce of fairness or honesty when responding to me for some reason. In case your wondering this seems to be about the place where Minderbinder took their images from. How about you tell me how it was possible for him to take photographs from that angle while on the other side of the fence since your apparently the expert here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can I prove that the images are made from the public footpath? They have been taken just a few weeks ago, so if I visit the site now, the conditions should not have changed a lot. Maybe I can do this this weekend. Shall I take a video of the site, shall I duplicate Minderbinders images? Would you believe me, if I take images or videos with my smartphone (because it is the only device I own, that takes images and GPS-coordinates simultaneously)? Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich habe die von mir angefertigten Aufnahmen komplett vom Fußgängerweg aus angefertigt, dabei über die Bewachsung am Zaun hinweg fotografiert. Dazu würde ich auch eine eidesstattliche Erklärung abgeben. Ich finde es wirklich langsam ganz schön albern, wie hier argumentiert wird. —Minderbinder (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I take pictures, I do not upload them in raw format. Rather, I take care to select only the good pictures, frame them by cropping, correct slanting angles, white filter, brightness and saturation. I also usually remove the EXIF information, because I do not care for other people to identify me by the ID of my camera, or follow my footsteps hour by hour, minute by minute. I am making an exception here, and have uploaded the pictures as taken, with EXIF information:
Check the locations taken, they follow the public footpath by the road.
@Rosenzweig: It would seem to me that you have an obligation to end this strange trial. Like I said above, I took these pictures from the public footpath (Bürgersteig) along Elbgaustraße. The EXIF information backs that up. If anybody else wants to challenge that, I would suggest they call me a liar to my face. I have been active on Wikipedia with this account since 2005. That's 18 years. I was elected a sysop on de:WP first in 2008. I know many people there personally, I have a reputation to defend. I am not some punk smearing other people's honesty. Time to stop this behavior. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Minderbinder: I'd rather not close this deletion request early again, and I'd rather not close a DR I opened myself if multiple parties with opposing views are involved; another admin should close this. I will however change my vote to  Keep after the extensive contributions by you, Dirtsc and Reinhard Kraasch, you have convinced me that it was and is indeed possible to take these pictures from the sidewalk (through some bushes), so fop does apply. This is not a "trial" BTW, you are not indicted, and nobody called you a liar. The thing here is that this DR was closed very early, with just the standard rationale not addressing the situation while the original nominator was not convinced. Looking at the images (and aerial images of the place), the situation wasn't really clear to me either, so it seemed that additional time for discussion and explanations could be helpful. And it was, you have convinced me. --Rosenzweig τ 08:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Vegetatives_Wachsen_(Klaus-Jürgen_Luckey)&oldid=824978913"