Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Olympiastadion Berlin

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:Olympiastadion Berlin

FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, these are all taken from a place (inside the stadium) that is not publicly-accessible (a fee would be charged for admittance or there would be other controls on admission) and therefore are not covered by German FOP.

and

File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg LGA _talk^edits 12:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGA _talk^edits 22:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures like File:DFB_Pokalfinale06.jpg don't really show anything, that could be protected by copyright, because architectural details are not visible. --MB-one (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images like File:2009-04-07 Berlin Olympiastadion 548.jpg, File:2009-04-07 Berlin Olympiastadion 549.jpg, File:200806 Berlin 399.JPG, File:Berlingo Olimpia Stadium.jpg and others technically are taken from outside the stadium: there is a terrace between the stands at one point, and on the first one you clearly see the fence preventing from entering the stadium itself (which means photographer is still behind the fence). There are many shots taken from this point that terrace that do not violate German FOP — NickK (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While there might be a second gate or fence there, the whole stadium complex is further fenced and gated making the position not publicly-accessible without passing through some form of access control. LGA _talk^edits 05:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether there is an access control there on days without much events. Google Street View shows that the gate to this terrace is open and there are people standing there, which means that this spot is publicly accessible. What is more likely is that this position is publicly accessible except on match days and is obviously dedicated to public (no other uses of this place are possible), which would make it in the same category as the abovementioned cemetery — NickK (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No the "dedicated to public" is very strict, as you can see from the examples listed on the FoP page; also given the comprihesive rules of admission to the park there can be little doubt that it does not meet the criteria for FoP. LGA _talk^edits 12:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papstbesuch Deutschland 2011 Olympiastadion.jpg This image I take was clearly permitted due the visit of the pope. Wheather it was taken inside or outside, at this special event, it was clearly allowed to take photos and to publish them in pubic domain. Better you think about the situation bevor requesting a deletion! -- Gegensystem (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an architectural copyright on the stadium which means they can not be released with a CC licence without the consent of that architectural copyright. LGA _talk^edits 05:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a copyright on the building, but the building is not the subject of the photo. (compare that to DE_URHG_§57) The photo clearly shows the event. That event with 61.000 people belongs to the interest of the public. So the photo is in the interest of the public and in that case it is clearly allowed to publish it. Also in the case of this event, as I said, the rights holder allowed to take photos inside. (opposide to §59 URHG if the right holder gives a permission, taking photos inside the building is allowed) -- Gegensystem (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question @LGA: do you want to include File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg, the source work to four derivative works listed here, into the discussion? This omission was pointed out by User:Degueulasse at Commons:井戸端#コモンズにおける削除依頼について. whym (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep and added. LGA _talk^edits 12:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about asking a permission from the architects de:Gerkan, Marg und Partner who are responsible for the latest modernization and renovation of this building? --Túrelio (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that for most of the photos (i.e. photos taken from inside of the stadium) that German FOP does not apply, many or even most of the pictures do not show copyright protected parts according to German UrhG (copyright law). Therefore, for every single photo has to be discussed individually whether the shown elements are protected. Maybe this is a problem when we mix up US and German law, but according to German law only I would keep most of the photos (I had a random look at a few and would keep them all). If you decide to delete them because the shown elements are protected under US law, please e-mail me the files that I can upload them locally on de.wp (my e-mail is *myusername*@wikipedia.de). Thanks. Yellowcard (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellowcard: : Do I understand correctly that German copyright law has a high threshold of originality and some parts of buildings may not be considered protected? It would be great if you could add any information (with sources) about this to COM:FOP#Germany or COM:TOO#Germany, as currently Commons is lacking information about TOO in German architecture. It would be much easier to point to some page if Germany has any court cases citing that some parts of buildings are copyright protected — NickK (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more general and not at all easy for me to explain in English because there are many terms in German language that don't fit into English words as they are associated with the US copyright terms. However, the German copyright differentiates very resolutely between (protected) artwork on the one hand and trade (handwork) on the other. Especially when subjects have an intended use (such as a soccer stadium), many elements of this are already given in the imagination of such a thing. These elements are not copyrighted as long as they do not contain a very individual style. An often used example in literature is a chair: However a carpenter designs his chair, as long as the elements of this chair are not clearly above the average chair, it's no subject to copyright. Applied on soccer stadiums, this means that elements in the Olympiastadium you can find in many other stadiums as well cannot be copyrighted while individual elements can. A general view into the interior of the stadium shows many usual elements except of the very individual roof which I would assume might be copyrighted. Additionally, we have the De minimis rule that allows us to use photos that even depict parts of the roof as long as they don't make a central point of the photo. // To keep the long story short: This mass DR doesn't bring us forward. I'm sure there will be photos that are not compatible with the German UrhG, but ~~most~~ many of them will be. Yellowcard (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have to evaluate each photo regarding 2 aspects both together:

1) How substantial is the originality of the work(s) visible at the photo

2) How much of that originality is reproduced by the photo

BGH, Urteil vom 24. 1. 1991 - I ZR 78/89: "The more striking the nature of the work used as a template, the less fades its peculiarities incorporated into the then created work. Conversely, if the work used as a template only has a low self-creative content it is more likely that the afterwards created work is 'free use'. (Je auffallender die Eigenart des als Vorlage benutzten Werkes ist, um so weniger werden dessen übernommene Eigenheiten in dem danach geschaffenen Werk verblassen. Umgekehrt können aber auch keine zu hohen Anforderungen an eine freie Benutzung gestellt werden, wenn das als Vorlage benutzte Werk nur einen geringen eigenschöpferischen Gehalt besitzt.)" --Alexrk2 (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, if this a correct deletion, you can delete many more images from german stadiums. Like all inside files from the Allianz-Arena in Munich: Category:Allianz Arena. Examples:

Info about rights: https://www.allianz-arena.de/de/service/stadionordnung/ Die Mitnahme von Fotokameras und sonstigen Bild-/Film- und Tonaufnahmegeräten zum Zwecke der kommerziellen Nutzung ist untersagt. --wikifreund (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Olympiastadion Berlin, dewikipedia have been using the files uneventful in the article. I think that this request is due to stretching the FOP in Germany.--Degueulasse (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without any doubt, German FOP is not applicable for photos taken from the stadium's inside. As stated above, many of these photos don't contain protected parts that are not de minimis. Some of these photos have to be deleted, but most of them don't. A mass DR doesn't bring us forward. Yellowcard (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per Yellowcard above. Please nominate individual files for deletion. Leyo 06:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]