Commons:Deletion requests/File:CPRileyJob2016.jpg

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:CPRileyJob2016.jpg

Although Germany has freedom of panorama, it doesn't cover temporal objects like posters. Günther Frager (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean that it would not be allowed to document any political posters that were used in elections, and that it would not be allowed to show how political parties use posters in their election campaigns, and how they are displayed and look like. Consequently all files in all categories on election posters would have to be deleted. --Kryp (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kryp: you are confusing what it is allowed to be published in a newspaper and what Commons' licensing policy allows. A newspaper can publish photos of elections posters and paintings of Picasso based on fair use, or other legal provisions. Commons on the other hand doesn't allow fair use content. Günther Frager (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So all images of political election posters must be deleted from Commons? What is the difference between this one and all the other ones? --Kryp (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kryp: it is not all black and white. Some poster have only text, or use images in the public domain and therefore are not under copyright. Some posters are uploaded by the political parties with a free license. Of course, there are posters, like the ones in this image, that don't follow COM:L, they will eventually be part of a DR. You can check the DR about Wahlplakaten in the category German FOP cases. Günther Frager (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining the background. You seem to assume that in this special case newspapers would be allowed to do something that Commons would not be allowed to do. The German law allows explicitly to take pictures of works that are displayed in public streets ([§ 59 Absatz 1 Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG): "Zulässig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Graphik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten und öffentlich wiederzugeben." (- It is permissible to reproduce, distribute and publicly display works that are permanently located on public paths, streets or squares by means of painting or graphics, photography or film.) In commentaries by experts (here an example) the term "bleibend" (permanent in the slightly inaccurate translation) is interpreted to apply in this context to political posters because they are displayed with the intention to stay several weeks explicitly for the public information ("bleibend" literally means "staying", which can have a temporal component depending on the individual situation, not all works need to stay for 3,000 years). It is also clear that the law does not distinguish between media - the law makes no difference between a newspaper, a broadcasting company or an online encyclopedia.

The application of this law to posters of election campaigns is also in the intention of the parties who display their posters, they do have an interest in distributing their information. The state on the other hand has an interest to allow the parties to display their posters in the public streets, communities are obligated to allow that (in Niedersachsen the corresponding Ministerialerlass (official instruction for communities by the federal state authority) requires that communities must allow this in all election campaigns). The political parties play an important role in the functioning of the state, so this interpretation of UrhG § 59 is in accordance with that. The political parties must obtain the opportunity in the election campaigns that their information gets distributed as far as possible without restrictions. This applies also to copyright restrictions, with the result that German television is allowed to show posters of political parties without a need to research licence issues and obtain permissions, whereas they are not allowed to show without restrictions the buildings of European institutions in Belgium. The press does not work under special regulations in terms of copyright considerations.

I do not think fair use is an issue here, and not a conflict of a copyright issue that is solved by the freedom of panorama. The political posters being the object as such are generally allowed to be photographed and shown.

As mentioned above, you would have to delete all images of political posters in Commons, taken at all occasions and in all federal states, with the effect that it would not be allowed to show how elections campaigns look like in public streets in Germany, and probably also elsewhere.

If posters can be uploaded by political parties with a free license for these photographs not being deleted, this would make it even worse. Parties could abuse this regulation and float Commons with their own posters, and by this way abuse the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation for political purposes. Other parties would be forced to do the same. --Kryp (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I address your doubts:

I'm aware of that part of the German law. That article is about "freedom of panorama" (Panoramafreiheit in German literature) and I already specified it doesn't apply to temporal object (the "bleibend" term is used in the law). You can check the famous Supreme Court case about the Wapped Reichtag [1], a temporal public exhibition were postcards where forbidden, but the press was free to use images on their articles. It also states that "bleibend" is partially influenced by the intention of the authors.
It is clear that political parties intend to have such ads in the streets for a limited amount of time: until the election ends. You are citing a blog, and I can cite book that argue the contrary.
What you mention about the state interest in allowing parties to display their ads has nothing to do with copyright. Cities and towns have special billboards or allow parties to install ads in usually forbidden public places like trees. They don't force political parties to surrender their copyright nor oblige national or foreign websites to host them.
The press as I mentioned has a special treatment in the Urheberrechtsgesetz. You can read the law [2].
The argument "you cannot delete this image unless you delete these others" is not a valid reason to keep an image in a DR. Moreover, I already pointed you out there are a many similar images that were deleted under the same argument.
The political parties own the copyright of their own posters. They can decide if they want to license them under a free license or not. If they do, then we can host them. The rest of your argument is irrelevant.

Günther Frager (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]