Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nagasaki-Glover-Garden-5356.jpg

Deleted, Japan's FoP laws apparently allow non-commercial use only. Quadell (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no name of the author of the monument. Since Japan allows "Freedom of Panorama" only for "NON commercial uses", whereas WikiCommons asks for all images to be available also for commercial use, unless the sculptor died at least 70 years ago these pictures should be deleted. Please provide the name of the sculptor to prevent deletion, if appropriate. --User:G.dallorto 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to:

• Image:Nagasaki-Glover-Garden-5357.jpg
• Image:Nagasaki-Glover-Garden-5358.jpg
• Image:Nagasaki-Glover-Garden-5359.jpg
• Image:Nagasaki-Glover-Garden-5360.jpg
• Image:Nagasaki-Glover-Garden-5361.jpg
• Image:Nagasaki-Glover-Garden-5363.jpg
• Image:Nagasaki-Glover-Garden-5366.jpg

I believe [1] describes this statue, and says it's by Gilbert Lebigre, given to Nagasaki in June 1996. --Davepape 19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand freedom of panorama. Can you direct me to an explanation so that I can learn more about it? The words do not appear to relate to these photos. Fg2 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Freedom of panorama. The statue appears to be a recent work, in which case it is still copyrighted, and the copyright owner has legal rights restricting the creation of derivative works, which includes photographs of the statue. Freedom of panorama is a special exception to those rights, but unfortunately the version in Japanese law is not free enough for Commons (commercial use must be allowed). --Davepape 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that link. I've looked at that entry, and the only provision I find prohibits copying the statue, not photography of the statue. In other words, one must not take a piece of marble, chisel it into the same shape, and sell it. But I don't see any restriction on photography of statues, and use of the photograph for commercial purposes. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. If there's a provision I have overlooked, I would appreciate your pointing it out to me. Fg2 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no lawyer. The guidelines are here but the Japanese text should be read to have a clearer point of view. Normally by "reproduction" it is meant photographing, not casting a mould of a sculpture. If you can read the Japanese text, perhaps we can make our mind about the issue... --User:G.dallorto 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read the text at the link, and I read the text it links to. It's a law of Japan, but the text is in English. I didn't see text in Japanese, but once again, if I've missed it, please point it out. To me, it speaks pretty clearly of making a new statue. To copy a statue is to make a new statue, not to make a photograph of one.

Separately, let me comment on the location of the statues in case it matters. They are permanently installed in Glover Garden, a public park in Nagasaki. The city government operates the park. It is open free of charge to citizens (I'm not a citizen) but visitors pay a fee to enter the park. Fg2 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked participants in WikiProject:Japan on the English Wikipedia to offer opinions. Their discussion is here. Fg2 11:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time we discuss about the matter (we have to start anew the discussion for each country... :-( ) and by now it is taken for granted that "reproduction" means any kind of reproduction, including photos and drawings and paintings and films.

It is possible, though, that the Japanese law be different, but in this case we need the original text, and someone who can read it, to see whether the English translation is correct or not.

In the meanwhile, if we have to stick to the translation, in English "reproduction" also includes pictures. The rule that only forbids actual, physical duplication, refers to patents, not to copyright, which is a different thing.

Furthermore, if the work of art in public display were a picture, taking a picture of it would make a physical duplicate, in this case. But the text we can read does not make a precise exheption for this case, which leads me to thing that by "reproduction" also pictures were intended.

Last but not least, our problem here is only in the fact that WikiCommons refuses the "non-commercial only" clause. If it were not for this choice of OURS, there would be no problem in uploading these images... Non-commercial use is clearly allowed by the Japanese law... it is the Wikimedia Foundation that wants the pictures to be available for commercial use as well... --User:G.dallorto 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the law of Japan, my belief is that it allows commercial exploitation of this work. I do not see anything in that law prohibiting commercial exploitation of this statue that is permanently installed in a public park. After repeatedly asking you to point out provisions of the law, I get only references to previous discussions on Commons, not related to Japan. The word "reproduction" must be interpreted according to the law of the country, not according to what discussions on Commons take for granted. One more time, I ask if there are any passages in the Japanese law prohibiting commercial exploitation of this statue. Unless you point out such passages, we should consider this discussion closed. Fg2 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortuntately a discussion can be considered "closed" when it is settled, which is not our case. :-(

There is a basic mistake in your reasoning. Since the Berne convention, in all countries signing it all works of the intellect are per se copyrighted, UNLESS the law states otherwise, whereas you reason as copyright should be demonstrated (by me, or whoever else). Well, copyright is not a patent, and unless the case for patents you do not need to file and pay a tax to get it. Copyright is a right that any author owns simply for the very and mere fact of being the author, ad that lasts for 70 years after his/her death. This right can be (and it is) limited by law, e.g. in the case of the freedom of panorama, but there is no need to "demonstrate" its existence, as you seem to imply. The reasoning goes the other way: like it or not (and as a fierce opposer of current copyright laws I don't like it) copyright applies always: it is the exceptions that have to be demonstrated, if they apply.

This is the reason why we cite precedent discussion. As I told already, one unpleasant feature of Commons is that the same discussion has to be repeated again and again for each country, before reaching a consensus. But there is a general principle that needs not to be demonstrated in each individual case, since it is a general, cover-all principle: for recent works of art it is exceptions that have to be demonstrated case by case, not the copyright. Fullstop.

In our case, the knowledge of Japanese language is necessary to see what the law says and if limitations to exclusive copy-rights by the sculptor here apply. I gather from your post you can read that language, which I don't. Therefore, if you are positive about the Japanese law allowing commercial use of copyrighted works (such as the one we are dealing about) when displayed in an open space, you should kindly amend the relevant paragraph in the page we use as guideline, here. This will allow other people to correct your opinion, or to substantiate it. I am not entitled to do so, since I can't read Japanese.

In only one point you are perfectly right. Wa cannot discuss without a direct look at the law. But in absence of a clear assessment, unfortunately the images should be deleted, since they may not stay in Commons UNLESS it has been proved we have the right to keep them. The bottom line is in fact that they are copyrighte stuff, not in the Public Domain. therefore, unless a law allowing their publiction is found and properly cited/translated, they should be deleted.

Settling the issue is important because, as you stated in your post in the en:Wikipedia, it applies to ALL AND ANY works of art whouse authorship and date may not be properly demonstrated. Failing that, they should be deleted from Commons. Sorry, I did not make the law, I'm just checking compliance with it. Don't take it personally, I am doing it on a routine base, I just happened to stumble on that statue merely because it depicts an Italian composer, and I normally "patrol" Italy-related items. --User:G.dallorto 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]