Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque

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:An-Nur Great Mosque

[edit]

The mosque was completed in 1968, there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, thus permission from the architect is needed

A1Cafel (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has a background in Indonesian law, I have long argued that there is no conclusive proof that there is no FOP in Indonesia, but my interpretation is always thoroughly refuted by those who does not even understand Indonesian copyright law. Go ahead and delete it, I don't really care anymore. dwf² ✉ 09:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there isn't, I question deleting the pagebanner, because it shows only bits of the mosque. What's the normal attitude about that in courts of countries that prosecute this kind of thing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
dwf², I take it, there has never been a court case about FoP in Indonesia? Or has there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: No, there has never been a court case regarding FoP in Indonesia. Even if there is one, Indonesian court cases (with the exception of constitutional law cases) are not binding authority, since stare decisis is not a principle of Indonesian law; meaning it could not be accepted in face value as a precedent. I have been in touch with people from Creative Commons Indonesia, who had been working with the Directorate-General of Intellectual Property at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights on several IP issues, and their attitude towards FoP enforcement (or lack thereof) in the country is basically "who cares, do what you want." I am not sure what to make out of it. dwf² ✉ 08:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like Commons should ignore the issue. If it's not a problem there, why should we make it one? Probably the worst thing that could happen is we'd have to delete something - which is what we're doing preemptively. A1Cafel, would you consider backing off on this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no mention on FOP in a country, then we cannot assumed that FOP existed. Your comments violated COM:PCP. Indeed, Indonesian does have FOP, but it is limited to educational and non-commercial use. According to COM:L, non-commercial licenses are unacceptable on Commons. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Let's spare us the debate; go ahead and delete it, please. dwf² ✉ 15:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is really silly. Not mentioning FOP means we also can't assume it doesn't exist, especially if there's never been a problem there, and A1Cafel, do you have any expertise on Indonesian law? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I want to say. Maybe @JWilz12345: can also help you. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Yuraily Lic: (a fan of "COM:DW of copyrighted XXX works, no FOP in YYY country") and @Minorax and Explicit: because many recent decisions of FOP-Indonesia DRs are made by em. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel and David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I'm suffering from common colds right now and cannot help here greatly, sorry. Pls read Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia#FoP instead. But here is the summary, the differing points of view on Indonesian FOP:

OK: Wikimedia Indonesia official position (based on Sudharto, Alifia Qonita, p. 39-40), supported by Jeromi Mikhael

Inconclusive: Supported by David Wadie Fisher-Freberg and RaFaDa20631

 Not OK: Creative Commons Indonesia official position, supported by Hilmanasdf, Liuxinyu970226 and Nat.

Pinging @Clindberg and Aymatth2: (both of them have participated in numerous copyright related discussions before). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The so-called positions like "probably about existing of FOP terms in Indonesian law" are already, entirely and no refusal way to be vetoed by that CCID blog post, that post confirmed that for re-using architectures in Indonesia, only educational and non-commercial uses are allowed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sure wish to learn about Indonesian copyright law from you. dwf² ✉ 05:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I don't understand that entire law either, but what I know is that Sudharto's vuw.ac.nz article, together with your ristekdikti.go.id journal below, are already vetoed by the Creative Commons Indonesia's post statement. If you think that these deletion decisions are unfair for you, why not try COM:UNDEL instead? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't understand it either! Let's set Sudharto's review aside here; the research was grounded on the 2002 Copyright Law, which has been superseded by the 2014 law. Andrea's et al law review was published on May 2020, and it is currently the *only* academic publication that specifically look into the question whether there's is a FoP or not under the 2014 Copyright Law. (CC's publication is solely their opinion, and is not academically peer-reviewed). What did Andrea et al said? Well, they clearly found that:

The results of the study stated that the UUHC had not yet regulated Freedom of Panorama and the protection of copyrighted works in public spaces and the efforts to prevent the infringement committed by the government and platform providers also have not been maximally in protecting copyright works in the public space for the uploaded content.

I don't know if you have any legal background or not, but legal writings and opinions of legal academic are often accepted as a source of law, particularly when the textual law and regulation does not specify anything; Indonesian courts also accept them, but please be mindful that there has been no court cases about FoP (or really, on copyright) before Indonesian courts. There has been no subsidiary regulation of the 2014 Copyright Law that deals with FoP (the fact that has been mentioned by CC's publication), and there is no hope of pushing the folks down at the Law and Human Rights Ministry to immediately issue a regulation to satisfy our debate here. What do we have here is one single law review which clarified that there is no clear FoP rule in place yet for Indonesia. Do what you can with it. dwf² ✉ 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nat: Is this true? I heard from you that both CCID's and ristekdikti.go.id's links confirmed what the de facto COM:FOP Indonesia said iirc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to revise what COM:FOP Indonesia said! But of course then Nat said I was wrong. Well, if I'm wrong, I will be genuinely surprised what's right. dwf² ✉ 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Because your links provided are also problemic, due to a sentence that is judged by Nat as "a non-free license, that violates COM:License": "unless agreed otherwise, the owner and/or holder of a works of photography, paintings, drawings, architectural work, sculpture or other artistic works have the right to make a publication of the works in a public exhibition or a reproduction in a catalog produced for exhibition purposes without any consent of the author", IMHO this ≈ 50% CC-BY-NC-ND, so unless if you provide evidences that why this isn't a license at all, it's unlikely that: 1. you can legally keep this file and their friends, and 2. you can request undeletions. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am under no obligation to provide any evidence. The files are requested to be deleted because the requesting party is of opinion that there is no FoP in Indonesia. I have provided sufficient opinion that they are wrong, but the final decision is not mine. As I have said before, I do not care if you delete it. Just delete it if you think it would serve the cause of the sum of all knowledge; but remember, but this whole thing just proved that certain Commons functionaries can just decide what they want to believe in and trample on the interpretation of a country copyright's law offered by folks who have a degree of understanding it. The consequences will not be pretty. dwf² ✉ 15:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: , @Hilmanasdf: , @Jeromi Mikhael: Indonesia has a "bodo amat" principle. Does Kemkominfo have an authority to take down all pictures or paintings published on Picasa, Flickr, Instagram, Panoramio etc. depicting architectures and sculptures of Indonesia? Or videos uploaded at YouTube this on Al-Jabbar Great Mosque (created by Ridwan Kamil, Governor of West Java), due to ad-monetized videos? Taking from 2020 journal by Andrea et al., p. 39 it states: Disamping ketentuan yang disebutkan sebelumnya, (aturan) terkait upaya represif yang dapat dilakukan dalam melindungi karya cipta yang ada di ruang publik pun belum sepenuhnya di akomodir [sic] oleh peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Copyright infringement in Indonesia is a delik aduan. We are user-generated content (UGC), like social media mentioned above and the journal above. However they are more commercial than us. Images or paintings or videos uploaded there are vulnerable to copyright infringement if you assumes FoP is not applicable in Indonesia. Can we be fined 4 billion rupiahs if we publish everything about Indonesia in Commons? RaFaDa20631 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RaFaDa20631: IMHO Yes it's possible, see COM:FOP Sweden for example, that mentioned that Wikimedia Sverige has been fined several Euros by their Supreme Court due to misleading of Swedish Copyright Law. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really tiring, is it not? From time to time I got notified that my files, or other Indonesian contributors' files, would be deleted due to this wonderful thing called FoP, which was interpreted and enforced in Commons by folks who have not even read the Copyright Law in Indonesian before, let alone fully comprehending it. When we tried to offer a clearer and more critical explanation, we were told that we are wrong. I have no other choice than to believe the true enlightened experts, who are even more worried about legal ramifications than us, so I should defer to their judgment. Just get it over with and sweep every single file depicting buildings in Indonesia and see how that could serve the cause of free knowledge. dwf² ✉ 05:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikimedia Sverige: they had to pay because they did not take down their database after the cease-or-desist letter. And the case never went to the supreme court. Please don't use an example without knowing it. –LPfi (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: Why not? The leading sentence of COM:FOP Sweden already says " Not OK — On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden ruled, that Article 24 does not extend to publication by Wikimedia in their online repository, regardless of commercial intent." --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was ruled by the supreme court, but only as it was heard by the lower court. The case itself never advanced to the supreme court. Moreover, the quote is very misleading, as the supreme court was confused on the relation between Wikimedia Sverige and Wikimedia Commons. –LPfi (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, these works fall under the scope of w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights and w:Template:FoP-USonly, and thus can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia with the appropriate tag. Just because they can't be on Commons doesn't mean they can't be used in related project(s).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I am not sure that would even work. The 1989 American-Indonesian Copyright Agreement clearly stipulated that "each contracting party shall, in accordance with its respective laws and procedures, accord to the works of authors who are nationals or domicillaries of the other contracting party, and to works first published in the territory of the other contracting party, copyright protection on the same basis as that accorded to its own nationals or comiciliaries or to work first published in its own territory" (Art. 2 [1]). International treaties are lex specialis and applies exclusively for this case (because Commons requests that all files must be free under American law). If it is not free under Indonesian copyright law, then it is not free under American law. dwf² ✉ 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: What Crisco said is to fair use on Wikipedia, which is just not allowed on Commons, but usually allowed on some Wikipedias, by the way, there are reasons that a random work is public domain in US but not in Indonesia, don't think this isn't possible, it's possible, just you don't ever know its example. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary discontinuation

[edit]

I propose, for the sake of fairness and the interest of not having to rehash these arguments in many years to come at different RfDs, that this request (as well with the other related requests requested by A1Cafel), be suspended pending a Commons-wide consensus on Indonesia FoP problem. You may take part in the discussion at COM:Indonesia talk page or this one at the Village Pump. dwf² ✉ 02:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: This is the actual one thing doesn't work, because even if A1Cafel, Nat and I don't do so, there are many peoples e.g. @Yuraily Lic: to do so. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What now?

[edit]

@A1Cafel: now that it is clear that Commons won't change its status quo on FoP-Indonesia and stick with its interpretation, at least please have decency to go through with what you propose in the first place. dwf² ✉ 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wiki Commons seems to determined to stick to its unilateral interpretation at all costs and in the teeth of opposing opinions, so let's delete every single outdoor picture as soon as possible so people don't learn too much about what Indonesia looks like or have too much context for articles. Davidelit (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What made it even more laughable (other than their exotic interpretation of UU Hak Cipta) is that when asked to delete my files that would run contrary to the status quo FoP-Indonesian interpretation, 4nn1l2 left a few files intact with no clear motive and then accused me of "gaming the system" when asked to clear what they have started. If selective prosecutorial discretion is even a thing, they seem to have perfected it into a form of fine art. dwf² ✉ 05:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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.

More files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque

[edit]

These files in that category need to be immediately deleted. Bennylin (yes?) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:Haze in Mosque, Pekanbaru.jpg
  2. File:Masjid agung 2.jpg
  3. File:Masjid Agung Annur morning exercise.jpg
  4. File:Masjid agung full.jpg
  5. File:Masjid An-Nur, Pekanbaru - panoramio.jpg
  6. File:Pekanbaru skyline.jpg

Deleted: per nomination and per COM:FOP Indonesia. --Elly (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:An-Nur_Great_Mosque&oldid=596997987"