Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Millau et Viaduc.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Millau et Viaduc.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2010 at 16:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Ritchyblack - uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The bridge is copyright protected, no "Freedom of Panorama" in France. This photo might be deleted... Sorry--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- France is copyrighted. Heh, what a crazy world. Grinatyou (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Crazy" is the good word. But as French, I may say that I like very much french spirit ! Funny, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- if an image violates the FOP you can censor the part of the image with copyright and the image becomes free? strange things.. Ggia (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Question can the Commons:De_minimis concept be applied here? Ggia (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was wondering about that, too. And here it is de minimis imo, so no copyright problem to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Hard to explain in a foreign language. Freedom of panorama and de minimis are anglo-saxon concepts, in use in Common law countries, but absolutely unknown in Roman Law (Civil law ?) countries. On this photo, they are two main subjects (see the name of the file), the city of Millau by night, and the viaduct. The viaduct is not incidental. There is a flagrant copyright violation. Here it is possible to consider that the statue (by Salvador Dali, then copyrighted) is incidental, because my attempt was to show the main courtyard of Château de Pommard (tree, architecture in a traditionnal and famous wine of Burgundy producer, old barrels etc...). I can explain that (with success) to a judicial court in a trial. Notice that I didn't put this image in the (illegal) Category of the sculptures of S.D. Furthermore, the categorization concerning "sculptures in Côte d'Or" was not added by me... Maybe I wanted to get round the law, but who knows ?
. Well, I get you the point it is not very fair, and not very understandable for non latin people, as american, canadian, australian, english (or german sometimes) legal points of view look sometimes very special for latin people... That's why mutual respect is absolutely necessary here, and that's why "Commons" is great, my friends ! --Jebulon (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, it's a bit difficult to argue that an element that is in the title of the file would be accessory and incidental (as much as I dislike French law on this topic -- which is quite a lot). Rama (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Hard to explain in a foreign language. Freedom of panorama and de minimis are anglo-saxon concepts, in use in Common law countries, but absolutely unknown in Roman Law (Civil law ?) countries. On this photo, they are two main subjects (see the name of the file), the city of Millau by night, and the viaduct. The viaduct is not incidental. There is a flagrant copyright violation. Here it is possible to consider that the statue (by Salvador Dali, then copyrighted) is incidental, because my attempt was to show the main courtyard of Château de Pommard (tree, architecture in a traditionnal and famous wine of Burgundy producer, old barrels etc...). I can explain that (with success) to a judicial court in a trial. Notice that I didn't put this image in the (illegal) Category of the sculptures of S.D. Furthermore, the categorization concerning "sculptures in Côte d'Or" was not added by me... Maybe I wanted to get round the law, but who knows ?
- I was wondering about that, too. And here it is de minimis imo, so no copyright problem to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
