Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Phare de Ploumanac'h

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:Phare de Ploumanac'h[edit]

Category:Phare de Ploumanac'h contains a lot of photographs of the current Ploumanac'h lighthouse. It was designed by architect Henry Auffret and built in 1946. According to the French Wikipedia, Auffret was still active in 1958, so the lighthouse is still copyrighted (lifetime of the architect plus 70 years). There is no freedom of panorama in France, so derivatives works of this lighthouse cannot be kept at Commons.

However, due to the many different motifs and perspectives, it seems adequate to review each affected file in this category individually. De728631 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Henry Auffret died in 1997 [1], so the copyright will cease on 31 December 2067. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright was not claimed in the US [2] which will make the works PD-USonly in 2042. Auffret was still alive on 1 Jan 1996 (URAA) so his works became copyrighted retroactively in the US. In this case 95 years have to be added to the date of publication. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: In the United States, there is no copyright protection for buildings completed before 1 December 1990, see {{PD-US-architecture}}. The building is of course protected by copyright in France. URAA granted certain works the full United States copyright term, and the full copyright term for a building of this age is zero. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's pretty nifty for using such images at en.wikipedia. I didn't know this clause. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible de-minimis[edit]

The following images, although depicting the building in question might be kept because the lighthouse is not the main subject and/or only a marginal part of it is shown.

"File:2012 08 Bretagne number.JPG" should be deleted in my opinion. The lighthouse is in the middle of the picture, bringing focus to it and making it clear that the lighthouse is the main event.
File:Côte de Granite Rose Brittany France.JPG is maybe too much about the rock to make the lighthouse an important part of the picture?
File:France Cotes d Armor Cote de granit rose 11.jpg: too much other stuff, similar to "number two" above. Keep this one.
File:France Cotes d Armor Cote de granit rose 13.jpg: unsure. The lighthouse is there prominently in the middle at the top of the picture, but the picture is also a lot about the rocks.
"File:Landes et rochers de Ploumanach panorama number.jpg": probably OK, too much other stuff, not sufficiently focused on the lighthouse.
File:Le Pahre de Men-Ruz, à Ploumanac'h.JPG: another one of those tricky ones... It's maybe more about waves than about lighthouses, but the filename indicates that the lighthouse is the main feature.
File:PERROS PLOUMANACH98.jpg: tricky, maybe fine because of the focus on the waves?
File:Perros-Guirec - La Côte de granit rose et le phare de Ploumanac'h - Juin 2005.jpg: the camera seems to have been set to be focused on the rocks, making the rocks the most important thing. Note how the lighthouse is blurrier than the rocks. I guess the building is de minimis here, but the lighthouse gets focus in the file name.
File:Phare de Ploumanac'h - Île Renote.jpg: the main purpose seems to be the island as a whole so the building is probably de minimis to this picture, but there's the problem with the file name which suggests that the lighthouse is the main subject.
"File:Phare de Ploumanac'h number.jpg": the building is at the centre on 004 but less centred on 005. Does this make 004  Not OK and 005 OK? On the other hand, the filenames indicate that the lighthouse is the main subject of the photos.
File:Phare de Ploumanac'h depuis la mer.jpg: I would have said that this was fine as a panorama shot if it weren't for the file name... The file name tells that the lighthouse is the main subject.
File:Phare de ploumanach 2.jpg: like the above, but the file name brings focus to the lighthouse, making it problematic.
File:Ploumanach.jpg: COM:FOP#France states that "Case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable". There seems to have been a lot of planning behind this picture and it seems that the camera has been carefully placed so that the top of the building shows up above the rock. I'd say that this is the opposite of unavoidable - the photographer seems to have spent a lot of effort on including the building like this. And that makes the picture  Not OK.
File:Pointe de Squewel.jpg: another one of those tricky ones...
File:Trégastel, Phare de Mean Ruz (3).jpg: the "creature" on the nearby building is clearly an important setting. What is the copyright status of this creature? With respect to the lighthouse, it might depend more on how you use the picture. Clearly not OK as an illustration to a text about the lighthouse, probably OK as an illustration to a text about the creature. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Stefan. I think File:2012 08 Bretagne 458.JPG can be kept because although the focus is on the tower, the big boulder in the foreground is way more prominent and distracts the observer from the lighthouse. The other two in that set might however go.
The same goes for File:Côte de Granite Rose Brittany France.JPG: a lot of rocks and a bit of a lighthouse, too.
As to File:Phare de Ploumanac'h ###.jpg and other file names prominently mentioning the lighthouse: would renaming the files heal this deficit and turn them de-minimis?
File:Pointe de Squewel.jpg may be tricky, but I'd say the focus is on the islands in the background, making this one OK.
File:Trégastel, Phare de Mean Ruz (3).jpg: If any restrictions arise because of the content depicted (use it for a but not for b), then we cannot keep it as a free file at Commons.  Delete. De728631 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use any of the pictures for the purpose of illustrating the lighthouse. That's the whole idea with de minimis: you can only use pictures of the copyrighted work if the inclusion of the copyrighted use is unimportant for your use of the picture. If you use an image for the purpose of showing what the building looks like, such as illustrating an article about the building, then the inclusion of the copyrighted work is always important for your use of the picture, no matter how unimportant the building may be in some other context. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this reduces illustrating the lighthouse to Wikipedias with fair use provisions. And any files that are kept should be tagged with {{De minimis}}. De728631 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free building shown, request for deletion[edit]

 Comment Please note that pictures of Superphenix and Odeillo Solar System were kept. These seem much more complex than these lighthouses. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Utilitarian / industrial building with no real originality, no copyright. Most of these pictures are general views anyway, so exempted. Only 2 images may not be OK: File:Trégastel, Phare de Mean Ruz (3).jpg, because of the sculpture, and File:20110820 Ploumanach (2).jpg, because of the house. I recreated separate DRs for these. Yann (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Phare_de_Ploumanac%27h&oldid=166365800"