Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Santa Giulia Billiart (Rome) - Exterior

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Files in Category:Santa Giulia Billiart (Rome) - Exterior[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this church, Ernesto Vichi, died in 2008. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2079.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like a pretty unique building to me, but then I know the standard of originality is higher in Italy then other places. Although I don't think thst should be used as an excuse to keep random images thst would otherwise be COPYVIO either. So..I leave it up to the closing admin. I do wish the stanard of originality was clearer though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, show me where this is 'original'. If it were original, no mass-housing buildings might be pictured. Italy has a high threshold of originality both on architecture and on photography. For example the Calatrava viaduct in Reggio Emilia can be considered original. This building nowhere close to be original. -- Blackcat 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really sure what your on about since the last time I checked this isn't "mass-housing building." But come on, are you seriously going to tell me there's no unique architectural elements in this image or that the building is at all comparable to something like this? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't care whether it's comparable or less with whatever. I only notice that there are only simple geometric shapes made with concrete. -- Blackcat 17:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, Blackcat. Your the one who brought up housing units. Regardless, all buildings are made up of basic geometric shapes. That's litterally how they work. You can't just act like a building is below the threshold of originality because it happens to have a rectangular window or whatever. What matters is the design of the building as whole and at least IMO its unique enough this case to be copyrighted. If you disagree with that because it has a rectangular door like other buildings, cool. I leave it up to the closing admin to decide. Although its clearly not at all as generic as a mass-housing unit, which again you brought up to claim it isn't original. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mention housing unit but mass housing, which is different (and I suppose you meant "you're the one", not "your the one"). I mention as example of building with no originality whatsoever. -- Blackcat 18:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word "mass" is a distinction withput a purpose. Regardless, this building has original elements to it. Although as I've said, I'm more then willing to let whomever closes make the final call. Its certainly better then pedantically arguing over the semantics of if a building is a mass-housing unit or not lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is, instead, especially in Italy (a country in Southern Europe surrounded by Adriatic, Mediterranean and Thyrrenian Sea) where architects in the aftermath of WWII built lots of houses with little or no originality. -- Blackcat 19:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about that. I think your underselling the uniqueness of post war church buildings over there. Some of them quit unique. Certainly no church where I'm from in the states even comes close. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Architects and art experts won't agree. -- Blackcat 20:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you just want there to be a de facto standard where every building in Italy is below the threshold of originality because all buildings are made up of basic geometric shapes and post war architecture of houses or something. You'd have to agree that wouldn't be tenable way to do this. We have to draw the somewhere. I've actually skipped over a lot of church buildings because I don't think they are original enough to be copyrighted. So it's not like I'm out there just indiscriminately nominating images of generic houses for deletion or anything. But if I were to compare this church to other ones, for instance Chiesa di Sant'Elena (Roma) or San Raffaele Arcangelo (Rome) to name a couple, it clearly has original architectural elements to it. I'd probably never suggest that a building like San Raffaele Arcangelo does though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find the degree of lack of FOP in Italy (and France and Romania) appalling, but it's the law, and we follow it. Yes, there is certainly enough originality in that building to merit a copyright. There are plenty of choices in that design that aren't merely functional or conventional. So, sadly, we have to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: , the threshold of originality is very high here. Not to mention that Vichi was an engineer, not an architect, and his work was more oriented to materials, not to design. -- Blackcat 21:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blackcat: is there anything in Italian copyright law about whether or not the designer of a building has a credential as an architect? - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: , your question has nothing to do with the topic. The matter is the threshold of originality, and this building doesn't reach it. -- Blackcat 21:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blackcat: If it has nothing to do with the topic, why did you raise it? - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: it's your question that has nothing to do with the topic. -- Blackcat 22:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to get in a pissing match here, but you wrote "Not to mention that Vichi was an engineer, not an architect". I then asked you whether his not having a credential as an architect had any bearing under Italian copyright law. I was trying to understand if I was missing one of the premises of a syllogism. Apparently I was not. I wouldn't normally put this the following way if you hadn't accused me of asking something that "ha[d] nothing to do with the topic," but: apparently your mention of him not being an architect had nothing to do with the matter at hand. I made the mistake of assuming that you had mentioned this fact because it was because it was in some way germane. Apparently, I was wrong in making that assumption. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mention of him as engineer HAS to do. Your question HAS NOT to do. Because it's a wrong question. An engineer is normally not supposed to be designed-oriented but rather material-oriented, because of their background. What has the law to do with that? Yours is a completely off-topic question. -- Blackcat 11:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really sure what you think engineers do, but they can and often are involved in the design of the building. So your really just arguing over semantics having to do with a job title that for all intents and doesn't really matter because Ernesto Vichi designed the building either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me but I don't understand what you say. -- Blackcat 14:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do a Google search about what engineers do. I was pretty clear about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We seem to have no consensus here so far, so I will mention this discussion on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Santa_Giulia_Billiart_(Rome)_-_Exterior&oldid=820981367"