Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Your Rainbow Panorama

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Files in Category:Your Rainbow Panorama|year=2024|month=March|day=09}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Files in Category:Your Rainbow Panorama|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Your Rainbow Panorama}} at the end of today's log.

Files in Category:Your Rainbow Panorama[edit]

Photos of the structure taken from the roof
Photos from inside of the structure
Photos of the ARoS Aarhus Kunstmusem building where the structure is on the roof

The ARoS Aarhus Kunstmuseum claim that "Your Rainbow Panorama" is a "work of art" and assert their right to restrict use of photographs of it (English / Danish). Denmark has freedom of panorama for buidings: "Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public". However FoP for other works of art is limited to those "permanently situated in a public place or road" (which this is) but not "if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes". The question, it seems to me, is whether we regard this as a "building".

The structure is a permanent addition to the museum, and the result of an architectural competition, that provides an eleveated 360-degree viewing gallery for visitors to the museum. In this regard it is not much different to viewing galleries/restaurants on the top of the BT Tower or The Gherkin, though it is unusual for being open to the sky on the inside also. Structurally, it is essentially a glass skywalk such as one often finds linking buidlings, except it has been continued around to meet itself in a circle. I think that if it were not colourful, one would simply regard this as a architectural element that cleverly provides a great view of Aarhus for visitors.

The glass of the viewing gallery is composed of panels that are coloured so that overall it takes on the spectrum of colours seen in a rainbow. Is "the visible spectrum" original enough to be copyrightable vs a mural for example? Many buildings make use of coloured glass or different shades of material to produce an artistic effect, and they are still buildings: for example the Gherkin, the cottages of Tobermory, and Isbjerget in Aarhus, Denmark.

Limited previous Danish FOP cases mostly involve statues such as The Little Mermaid. One DR kept Kapel til nutiden.jpg as it was considered a building, despite its arty design. The FOP page for the US defines a building as "houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions".

I've grouped the above images because it may be that some views are permitted and some not. Could a photo from inside the structure be different from one outside, or one that focuses just on a section of glass? ADD: Pokéfan95 suggests FoP does not apply for photos taken inside, so then we need to consider if those photos capture something copyrightable. Some just show a corridor with blue glass, or with green glass, which doesn't seem copyrightable IMO, but some others show more of the spectrum, but is that original enough?

This is a top tourist attraciton in Aarhus, Denmark, and highly photogenic, so it would be good to have a consensus on it. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I'd like to point the definion of what is a building: "A building or edifice is a structure with a roof and walls standing ...". Is it that what we have here is that? yes, it is. Danish FoP is ok for buildings and our policies don't talk about potential exeptions for the buildings a little more artistic. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all of them. The first and third group depicting the panorama seems to meet the definition of a building in the U.S., since both the building and the panorama is designed to be occupied. I think the panorama is also considered a building for Denmark, because the panorama has a roof (the top of the glass) and wall (the coloured glasses on the side). For the second group, although there is no FoP for interiors in both the U.S. and Denmark, the interior is not creative enough to be protected by copyright. Also, for File:Aarhus skyline from Rainbow Panorama.jpg, it is not obvious that it was taken from the interior of the panorama, unless a description that it was taken from the interior of the panorama is provided. So to sum it up, FoP applies for the first and third group, while COM:TOO applies for the second group. --★ Poké95 02:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pokéfan95, thanks for the review. I was not sure if FoP applies inside for Denmark. Do we have a source for that? The File:Aarhus skyline from Rainbow Panorama.jpg is taken from inside. The Flickr source does not explicitly say, but it is taken from a stream of photos with others clearly on the inside taken seconds before and after. Also the clarity and downward angle of the view are not viable if taken from the roof of the building instead. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to our COM:FOP, there is no FoP information regarding interiors in Denmark. I assumed that it doesn't apply for interiors, which I also did before for Philippine buildings (which currently has no FoP information for any permanent, public works in the Philippines). For the file you mentioned, I know it was taken from the inside, I just described it. I used it as a basis for being below COM:TOO. Apologies if I didn't became clear. :) ★ Poké95 07:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I would say  Keep. The w:Hundertwasserhaus was ruled on per the architectural FoP clause in Germany's law, I believe (granted, public works of art would also fall under the same clause there). Unless there is a court ruling from Denmark on the matter, it looks like a building to me, unless there is some separable sculpture or something like that. (As for interiors, if the law does not distinguish, I'm not sure why the interior would be any different than the exterior. I think it is only laws which want to distinguish the two which make that explicit.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Although the Danish statute (pdf) does not define what is meant by a 'work of art', it clearly means something other than a 'work of architecture' (cf s12(2)(i) and s12(2)(ii)). The overall structure cannot be anything other than a 'work of architecture' and it seems to have all the attributes of a building - namely a roof, floor and walls, intended for the use of people. So I think that photos of the whole structure are OK on that basis: they simply show an artistically-designed building. Even if the windows could be considered as a 'work of art', close-ups or pictures taken through the windows show one or several coloured glass panes following the usual spectrum, and COM:TOO applies.
Unless they can point to some specific Danish caselaw, ARoS Aarhus Kunstmuseum's claim that they can restrict photographs since this is a 'work of art' does not appear to be valid. The concept of windows coloured like the spectrum may be a nice artistic conceit, but copyright does not protect concepts, even fine-art concepts, unless the implementation includes specific original features that exceed the threshold of originality. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michael. Is it possible they have any non-copyright rights similar to personality rights, that restricts the commercial use of their iconic building for publicity, etc. Many stock photo sites in the US require a "property release" for photos of modern buildings. That wouldn't affect us hosting it, but perhaps we need a warning template to alert external re-users that there may be some restrictions on their use. Or do you think their claims are completely baseless? -- Colin (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: I think that most 'property releases' are required out of an excess of caution. Even where there is no copyright justification they can be used to protect the photo re-seller or web host against any claim by the building copyright owner. Without such a release, the re-seller would only have the photographer's word that FoP applies, and they generally aren't in a position to be able to check whether the photo was, for example, taken from the public highway. There are no internationally-recognised non-copyright rights that could protect a building's image, as such, but in some countries intrusive long-lens images of a building could constitute harassment or represent a breach of privacy of the occupants. Also, commercial use of the image of a well-known building could in principle consitute trademark infringement or passing-off/unfair trade practice, especially if customers would incorrectly assume the image was being used by or on behalf of the building owner. But as those issues apply to many if not most types of architectural photography I don't think that Commons needs any special warning templates. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks Michael. -- Colin (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per above discussion. --Yann (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Your_Rainbow_Panorama&oldid=244133493"