Commons:Deletion requests/File:Il Grande Ferro R, Alberto Burri, pala De André, Ravenna.jpg
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.
File:Il Grande Ferro R, Alberto Burri, pala De André, Ravenna.jpg[edit]
There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Per w:it:Grande Ferro R, this sculptural installation was authored by w:it:Alberto Burri. Still under his posthumous copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep The municipality of Ravenna (owner of the monument) has authorized the publication of the images of this monument for the initiative Wiki Loves Monuments. The authorization seems generic enough to cover also the photos made otuside of the project ("autorizzo, ai sensi degli artt. 107-108 del dlgs 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 (codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio), la pubblicazione senza alcuna richiesta di canone, per qualsiasi finalità, delle riproduzioni dei monumenti in nostra custodia che risultano di seguito elencati." engl. "I hereby authorize, following the articles 107-108 of the law n.42 of 22 January 2004 (code of the cultural heritage and landscape) the publication without fees, for any purpose, of the reproductions of the monuments in our custody hereby listed").--Friniate (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate: Does the municipality of Ravenna own the copyrights of this work by Alberto Burri? If they do, they should send a proper permission to COM:VRT so it can be documented. This authorization you cite doesn't really seem to cover the author's copyrights though as I understand it. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig The entire WLM authorization process is based on the assumption that the owners of the monuments know what they are doing. Wikimedia Italy promotes this project since 2012 cooperating with lawyers specialized on the issue, I think that we can safely assume that the authorization covers also the author's copyrights. Friniate (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate: Then why are there no proper VRT permissions? This is from 2021, so quite recent, the VRT process must have been known. Reading this authorization, this does seem to be about the it:Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio – the law by which the Italian state, among other things, wants to regulate and put a price tag on reproductions of all kinds of monuments and works of art, even if they are centuries old (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets). So this is NOT AT ALL about copyright, but about an exemption from this peculiar Italian law. Therefore
Delete, because I don't see any permission there regarding Alberto Burri's copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 21:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- No WLM authorization is processed through VRT at all, since they are too much. There is an internet portal created for this precise purpose by WMI and freely accessible by everyone. As for the rest, I know, but the interpretation is normally that the authorization covers also the copyright. I don't think that WMI would promote multiple violations of the copyright. Friniate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate where is the proof that MiBAC authorization applies to copyrighted works? The cited decree on cultural works in COM:FOP Italy only applies to works that are already in PD and that is actually a COM:Non-copyright restriction. In fact, the need for authorization has no bearing for Commons because it is a non-copyright restriction, since the cultural works of Italy are PD works themselves (like Venice, Statue of David, Colosseum, or the Leaning Tower). An associated template is {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, which is valid only for PD works of Italy protected as cultural heritage assets. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- No wait, Mibac authorization has nothing to do with that, it's only about the non-copyright restriction. What I'm saying is that WMI and WLM usually consider the authorizations from the owners (not the Mibac generic one!) valid also for the copyright. This monument was listed among those included in WLM in 2021 and 2022. I know that they work with a legal team, that I think knows the issue better than any of us, so for me is very hard to imagine that WMI is asking with banners on it.wiki, ads and so on to violate the copyright on dozens and dozens of monuments. Other DRs about the same matter opened in the last months have been consistently closed keeping the images, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Infantryman Monument (Salsomaggiore Terme), or Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monumento ai Caduti (Reggio Emilia). Friniate (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Usually consider" sounds like a lot of hearsay. I'd like some less vague statement about this. Also, in one of the other DRs article 11 of the Italian copyright law was mentioned. The text of that which I found says "Alle Amministrazioni dello Stato, al Partito Nazionale Fascista, alle Provincie ed ai Comuni spetta il diritto di autore sulle opere create e pubblicate sotto il loro nome ed a loro conto e spese. Lo stesso diritto spetta agli enti privati che non perseguano scopi di lucro, salvo diverso accordo con gli autori delle opere pubblicate, nonche' alle Accademie e agli altri enti pubblici culturali sulla raccolta dei loro atti e sulle loro pubblicazio." which translates to "The Administrations of the State, the National Fascist Party, the Provinces and the Municipalities are entitled to the copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and at their expense. The same right shall accrue to private entities pursuing non-profit purposes, unless otherwise agreed upon with the authors of the published works, as well as to the Academies and other public cultural bodies on the collection of their proceedings and their publications." (Strange that a current law would still mention the Fascist Party, is this text outdated?) Anyway, do you really mean to imply that all those monuments and buildings listed in said authorization were "created and published under the[...] name and on the[...] behalf and at the[...] expense" of the municipality of Ravenna? Created, published, on the behalf of and paid by Ravenna? That seems rather hard to believe. Or how else would a municipality be the holder of the copyrights of these works? Does that article really refer to works of art (and buildings), or does it rather refer to literary / textual works (which sounds much more plausible)? --Rosenzweig τ 00:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Per it:Grande Ferro R, the work was commissioned by it:Raul Gardini, not by the municipality of Ravenna. So why would Ravenna own the copyright? --Rosenzweig τ 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- No wait, Mibac authorization has nothing to do with that, it's only about the non-copyright restriction. What I'm saying is that WMI and WLM usually consider the authorizations from the owners (not the Mibac generic one!) valid also for the copyright. This monument was listed among those included in WLM in 2021 and 2022. I know that they work with a legal team, that I think knows the issue better than any of us, so for me is very hard to imagine that WMI is asking with banners on it.wiki, ads and so on to violate the copyright on dozens and dozens of monuments. Other DRs about the same matter opened in the last months have been consistently closed keeping the images, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Infantryman Monument (Salsomaggiore Terme), or Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monumento ai Caduti (Reggio Emilia). Friniate (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate where is the proof that MiBAC authorization applies to copyrighted works? The cited decree on cultural works in COM:FOP Italy only applies to works that are already in PD and that is actually a COM:Non-copyright restriction. In fact, the need for authorization has no bearing for Commons because it is a non-copyright restriction, since the cultural works of Italy are PD works themselves (like Venice, Statue of David, Colosseum, or the Leaning Tower). An associated template is {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, which is valid only for PD works of Italy protected as cultural heritage assets. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- No WLM authorization is processed through VRT at all, since they are too much. There is an internet portal created for this precise purpose by WMI and freely accessible by everyone. As for the rest, I know, but the interpretation is normally that the authorization covers also the copyright. I don't think that WMI would promote multiple violations of the copyright. Friniate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate: Then why are there no proper VRT permissions? This is from 2021, so quite recent, the VRT process must have been known. Reading this authorization, this does seem to be about the it:Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio – the law by which the Italian state, among other things, wants to regulate and put a price tag on reproductions of all kinds of monuments and works of art, even if they are centuries old (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets). So this is NOT AT ALL about copyright, but about an exemption from this peculiar Italian law. Therefore
- @Rosenzweig The entire WLM authorization process is based on the assumption that the owners of the monuments know what they are doing. Wikimedia Italy promotes this project since 2012 cooperating with lawyers specialized on the issue, I think that we can safely assume that the authorization covers also the author's copyrights. Friniate (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Friniate: Does the municipality of Ravenna own the copyrights of this work by Alberto Burri? If they do, they should send a proper permission to COM:VRT so it can be documented. This authorization you cite doesn't really seem to cover the author's copyrights though as I understand it. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've also looked into articles 107 and 108 of the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (as mentioned in the authorization). Article 107, paragraph 1 says "1. Il Ministero, le regioni e gli altri enti pubblici territoriali possono consentire la riproduzione nonche' l'uso strumentale e precario dei beni culturali che abbiano in consegna, fatte salve le disposizioni di cui al comma 2 e quelle in materia di diritto d'autore." which translates to "1. The Ministry, regions and other public territorial bodies may allow the reproduction as well as the appropriate and temporary use of cultural property that they have in consignment, subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and those relating to copyright." So municipalities can allow reproduction of said works, but must adhere to paragraph 2 (about 3D reproductions, not relevant for us) and to copyright. So they can't just overrule copyright. Article 108 is completely about money, costs and fees that may be attached to such authorizations. --Rosenzweig τ 06:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- And another thing, the authorization by Ravenna is from 2021 and intended, as I understand it, for photos taken in the course of that year's "Wiki Loves Monuments" contest. The photo we have here however was taken and uploaded in 2017, long before 2021 and not in the context of WLM. So is it even covered by this authorization? This whole thing is getting more and more dubious. --Rosenzweig τ 09:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- The monument was commissioned by Gardini (whose economic empire failed few years thereafter) together with the nearby sport arena it:Palazzo Mauro De André, but now they belong to the municipality see. As for the authorization, I don't see in there any reason why it should be limited to Wiki Loves Monuments, it's generic enough to apply to every photo IMO. As for the retroactivity, well, if we assume that it would be ok for everyone now to take a photo of that monument and upload on commons, then I don't see why we should delete a photo that everyone could legitimately take now, only because it was taken before the authorization: photos taken in copyviol are restored as the copyright problems vanish or expire, why should we behave differently in this case? Even if this DR ends with the deletion of the file, it would be restored in the future (in 2066), so that it's clearly not the issue here, we already have plenty of files uploaded in copyviol and then restored as they were not in copyviol anymore.
- As for the general issues regarding the interpretation of the italian law I don't know what to say, other that if you really believe that Wikimedia Italy is actively promoting a copyright violation on hundreds of images of commons, you should email the Wikimedia Foundation and let their lawyers check if what you believe is true. Friniate (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- And another thing, the authorization by Ravenna is from 2021 and intended, as I understand it, for photos taken in the course of that year's "Wiki Loves Monuments" contest. The photo we have here however was taken and uploaded in 2017, long before 2021 and not in the context of WLM. So is it even covered by this authorization? This whole thing is getting more and more dubious. --Rosenzweig τ 09:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Per article 11 of the Italian Copyright Law, municipalities hold the copyright on works made on their behalf. What was linked above seems a valid permission also as regards copyright. --Ferdi2005(talk) 17:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Ferdi2005: Actually, I already looked at this article 11 (see above), and I doubt that what you write is true, or at least that it is the whole truth. Also, per the discussion above, this work of art was not "made on the behalf" of Ravenna. Did you actually read this discussion? --Rosenzweig τ 18:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: the arguments at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:Chiesa dio padre misericordioso roma.JPG may be relevant here. Ping @Ankry and Nat: from Commons administration side and @Blackcat: from the opposition side. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have also informed User:Ruthven (who complained at COM:AN/U about deletion requests for WLM Italy files) of this discussion. Maybe someone has a convincing explanation for the copyright question. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: @Rosenzweig The permission for WLM is generic, so any photo of the sculpture can be published under CC BY SA 4.0 license (or a compatible one). Besides this specific permission, all works made for the State, a local government or a governemental organization is in the public domain in Italy 20 years after their creation. Ruthven (msg) 11:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
