Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Casa Presei Libere

< Commons:Deletion requests
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:Casa Presei Libere

edit

According to en:Casa Presei Libere, this is a building by ro:Horia Maicu (1905-1975). In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.

Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • first the hammer and siecle picture does not show the building. second where is the orginal work of the architect for hammer and siecle? The hammer and siecle where the official signs,in noway the archtect could have the copyright for and official sign.?
  • second the whole building is a dervative work after the "seven sister" Lomonosov, Warshav etc... CristianChirita (talk)
  • The hammer and sickle depicted here were part of the "coat of arms" of the Romanian Workers' Party, adopted as a symbol of the communism by all states under Soviet Union control. The building itself is not the subject of this picture.
  • On the other hand, the building itself appears on Romanian banknotes, like this one:

Miehs (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 20:52, 30 March 2013 (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.

Files in Category:Casa Presei Libere

edit

There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Romania. This building, according to ro:Casa Scânteii, was designed by Nicolae Bădescu (died 1991) and Horia Maicu (died 1975).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, no FOP in Romania.  JGHowes  talk 16:43, 10 July 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.

Files in Category:Casa Presei Libere

edit

The building was completed in 1957 by Horia Maicu (1905–1975) and engineer Nicolae Bădescu (1912–1991). There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2062.

A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Parliament VS Arhitect of Romanian Palace of parliament

edit

Case Description: Romanian Parliament sell poscard images with Romanian Pariament and it is requested that the defendant be obliged for the future to stop using and exploiting the intellectual property rights conferred on the plaintiffs regarding the Complex Project of the House of the Republic (currently the Palace of the Parliament).

By civil sentence no. 885/14.06.2017, the Bucharest Court – Fourth Civil Section rejected, as unfounded, the action brought by the plaintiffs (Arhitect ) in opposition to the defendant Parliament of Romania – .

In order to decide in this way, the court analyzed the action through the lens of the intellectual property rights claimed to be violated, for each one separately, analyzing the fulfillment of the conditions for attracting specific liability for their violation.

Copyright. Through the first petition of the action, it was requested that under the terms of art. 139 paragraph 3 letter a, thesis II of Law no. 8/1996 to order the provisional cessation of the use and exploitation, without right, by the defendant of the intellectual property rights conferred on the plaintiffs regarding the Complex Project of the House of the Republic (currently the Palace of the Parliament), and by the fourth petition it was requested under art. 12 and 139 par. 3 lit. a) sentence I of Law no. 8/1996 on copyright and related rights to prohibit the defendant from using the work The complex project of the House of the Republic without the consent of the plaintiffs.

The existence of a copyright of the plaintiffs' author was invoked, regarding the Complex Project of the House of the Republic (currently the Palace of the Parliament).

Thus, according to the normative text indicated by the plaintiffs, if the owner of the copyright or one of the persons referred to in para. (1) provides credible proof that the copyright is the subject of an illegal, current or imminent action and that this action risks causing him a damage that is difficult to repair, he can ask the court to take some provisional measures. The court can order in particular: a) the prohibition of the violation or its provisional termination.

The court analyzed, in the context of the claims of the plaintiffs, whether they provided credible evidence that the copyright is the subject of an illegal, current or imminent action and that this action risks causing them a damage that is difficult to repair.

It is stated, in point 8 of the action brought to the judgment, that the author of the plaintiffs held the copyright on the Complex Project of the House of the Republic.

The invoked copyright is the one provided by art. 7 lit. h from Law no. 8/1996, respectively "original works of intellectual creation in the literary, artistic or scientific field, whatever the mode of creation, mode or form of expression and independent of their value and destination, are the subject of copyright, such as: works of architecture, including plans, models and graphic works that form architectural projects".

The court found, as a first aspect, that the copyright held by the plaintiff author over the "Complex Project of the House of the Republic - House of the People" - as an architectural work and over the plans, models and graphic works that make up the architectural project, sent to the plaintiffs in the conditions of art. 11 paragraph 2 of Law no. 8/1996, the defendant invoking the capacity of "administrator" of the House of the People, not assigning anyone else the capacity of architect. 

  Thus, the plaintiffs, in their capacity as heirs of the author of a work, have the following moral rights: the right to decide if, in what way and when the work will be brought to public knowledge; the right to claim recognition of the authorship of the work, the right to claim respect for the integrity of the work and to oppose any modification, as well as any touch to the work, if it damages its honor or reputation;

According to art. 13 of Law no. 8/1996 the use of a work gives rise to patrimonial rights, distinct and exclusive, of the author to authorize or prohibit: the reproduction of the work; distribution of the work; the import for the purpose of commercialization on the domestic market of copies made, with the consent of the author, after the work; rental of the work; loan of the work; the public communication, directly or indirectly, of the work, by any means, including making the work available to the public, so that it can be accessed in any place and at any time chosen, individually, by the public; radio broadcasting of the work; cable retransmission of the work; making derivative works. 

   As for the infringement of moral rights of the author, the court held that no such proof was made by the applicant. Thus, the work was brought to public knowledge before the political changes in Romania, in the context of the communist dictatorship, the plaintiffs affirming that from the beginning, their author was identified as the person who created this work from an architectural point of view.

Regarding the moral right to be recognized as the author of the work, the court held that in this case it refers to the right of the plaintiff's author to be recognized as the author of the architectural work, a matter that was not denied by the defendant in its response, not making -there is also no evidence of a denial of this quality.

In the context of the description of the illegal acts committed by the defendant, in the summons, the plaintiffs did not consider the violation of a "copyright". Thus, when the plaintiffs request to establish that they have been infringed on their intellectual property rights, as a result of the use of some advertising materials, reference is made only to a violation of trademark rights, which will be analyzed later, not to copyright.

However, considering that the plaintiffs did not dwell on each intellectual property right invoked and did not show the actual way in which each of them were violated, the court, making a global assessment, applying the facts described as causing damages, by reference to each intellectual property right held.

The court held that the architect has the exclusive patrimonial right to decide if, in what way and when the work of architecture will be used, including to consent to the use of the work by others, and the use of the work gives rise to several patrimonial rights, among which, for example, to reproduce the work, but the court found that the reproduction of the work does not refer to the transmission of a photographic image of it, but to actually replicating the architectural work.

Thus, copyright is not defined as a property right in the sense of a real right, but is a complex independent right (intellectual creation right, which has elements of real law and similarities with debt rights), this coexisting in this hypothesis together with a property right over the construction in which the creation of the author of the architectural work was incorporated, held by the holder of this right.

Therefore, the court found that the plaintiff had to prove in this context, through the prism of the previous copyright. of art. 7 lit. h from Law no. 8/1996, that a public communication was made within the meaning of art. 15 of the architectural work and not a communication of the image of a construction, of a physical asset in which the work created by the author was embodied, which belongs to an owner, be it even the Romanian state. However, in this case, the use of the image of the "House of the People" construction and some products containing this figurative element does not constitute a violation of the right of the author of the architectural work to authorize the public communication of the architectural work, what has been publicly communicated is the image of the tangible asset, the work architectural having a much wider content than the final image of the photographically transposed construction. The court found that it was not invoked which specific patrimonial right of the author would have been violated, but it was found that the right to authorize or prohibit the reproduction of the work was not violated, an attempt to reproduce Casa Poporului was not proven.

The right to authorize or prohibit the distribution of the architectural work includes in its materiality the sale not of some photographs of the construction but the sale or transmission of the entire architectural concept.

The court held that the violation of the architect's copyright is analyzed in close connection with the provisions of art. 84 of law no. 8/1996, according to which "architecture and urban planning studies and projects exhibited near the construction site of the architectural work, as well as the construction carried out after them, must bear the author's name in writing, in a visible place, unless otherwise agreed in the contract. The construction of a work of architecture, realized in whole or in part according to another project, can only be done with the consent of the owner of the copyright on that project."

Therefore, the court held that there was no proof of copyright infringements of the plaintiffs' author regarding the architectural work, the Complex Project of the House of the Republic, not being an incident by way of consequence art. 139 of Law no. xxxxx, and in the absence of an act causing damage, in this context, a tortious civil liability cannot be held for the violation of the legal norms related to copyright, under the conditions of art. 1349 et seq. c.civ, not being able to oblige the defendant to those requested by the petitions relative to the right of ownership.

https://muzicainstantelor.ro/index.php/2019/09/22/marca-casa/

Conclusion

edit

The images taken in the wild could be subject to trademark , the copyright law cannot be used to restrict comercial use of the photo. Link to the trademark mention in the above case: https://api.osim.ro:8443/tm-registry/detail/trademark.htm?idappli=X8342524%20%20%20%20 https://api.osim.ro:8443/tm-registry/detail/trademark.htm?idappli=X8342526%20%20%20%20 https://api.osim.ro:8443/tm-registry/detail/trademark.htm?idappli=X8342528%20%20%20%20 https://api.osim.ro:8443/tm-registry/detail/trademark.htm?idappli=X8342530%20%20%20%20 In order to demand deletion of photos from romania: the requester of deletion should show the link to the trademark infrigement as is the above showcase. There are zero records for the Architect Horia Maicu in trtademark registry and also zero records for Nicolae Bădescu.

PD-RO-photo

edit

There is the case {{PD-RO-photo}} for old photos. According to this answer, File:Scinteia-székház. Fortepan 2506.jpg is in this case. Artvill (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, no COM:FOP in Romania. --Wdwd (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Casa_Presei_Libere&oldid=794125803"