User talk:Josve05a

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josve05a.

This is the user talk page of Josve05a, where you can send messages and comments to Josve05a.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

• Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• Put new text under old text.
• New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
• Click here to start a new topic.

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day. The latest archive is located at Archive 15.

COM:AN

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Bladeandroid (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

See the topic just above the one you opened. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI it was not open for a week. It was only open for 2-3 days. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giraffes children playground in Apollo Park in Kirov.jpg

No one except the nominator spoke in favor of deletion, and our reasonings were ignored by the closing admin. Do you see any chance for this at COM:UNDEL? Quick1984 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning to raise this on UNDEL this weekend when I had time off from irl work. We either need a better reason from the admin to delete or a keep resolution. (Courtesy ping since we’re both admins: Jameslwoodward). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Quick1984, I would be happy to restore this if we better understood the Russian law -- since none of the three of us reads Russian (as far as our User Pages show), I think you might enlist a Russian speaker for the discussion. All that I see at COM:FOP Russia is,

" FoP exceptions for works of architecture, urban development, and garden and landscape design",

Although placed in a park, these are sculptures, not part of the landscape design. Your reading of the law would extend FoP to virtually any sculpture that sat in even a few square meters of grass..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see ГОСТ-Р-55935-2013 Садово-парковое искусство / Russia's State Standard GOST-R-55935-2013 Garden and Landscape Design (see w:GOST).

3. Термины и определения
В настоящем стандарте применены термины по ГОСТ Р 55528, ГОСТ 28329, а также следующие термины с соответствующими определениями:
3.1 объект ландшафтной архитектуры и садово-паркового искусства: Ансамбль, представляющий собой творение человека или совместное творение человека и природы, и включающий в себя архитектурные объекты, малые архитектурные формы, монументальную скульптуру, зеленые насаждения, гидросистему, инженерные сооружения, дорожно-тропиночную сеть.
3 Terms and Definitions.
This standard uses the terms of GOST R 55528, GOST 28329, and the following terms and corresponding definitions:
3.1 Landscape architecture and gardening art object: An ensemble representing a human creation or a joint creation of man and nature, and including architectural objects, small architectural forms, monumental sculptures, green spaces, a hydraulic system, engineering structures, and a road and path network.
Quick1984 (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I spent some time looking at this, including the "semi-official" WIPO translations of the Russian copyright law, which suggest that FOP in Russia can extend to works of garden and landscape design. Russian sources I consulted (via Google Translate and ChatGPT) indicate that such works often include sculptures and small architectural forms. Local news reports also note that the giraffes were created by university students under an artist's direction as part of the park creation, suggesting they were intended as park art rather than standalone playground props.

I raised this on the DR, and no one challenged it, not even the nominator or you as the closing admin. Per COM:EVIDENCE, unless disproven, this should count as valid evidence that ought to have been addressed or noted if someone disagreed. I believe the file should be restored, or at minimum the closing rationale should explain why my (the community's) claim is considered incorrect. According to COM:DR, the closing admin’s responsibility is to either carry out unchallenged deletions or weigh any arguments against deletion. Ignoring unchallenged, reasonable evidence fails to reflect the community's input. (We want to encourage “normal” users to comment on DRs after all, not just nominations and closing admins). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: direct ping, since you don't respond to the reply to your remark. Quick1984 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, you may well be right, but the issue is very subtle. Broadly read, the definition at 3.1 could include any outdoor sculpture with a few square meters of grass around it. Because of the subtlety, I would be much more comfortable with restoring the image if an experienced Russian speaking Admin were involved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Your kind assistance is greatly appreciated. Quick1984 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This is in "gray area". Russian copyright law is disbalanced and largely privatized in favor of rights holders (including Collective Rights Management agencies and others large rights holders). The Russian judicial system does not encourage private individuals to seriously approach it for resolution of such issues.

Therefore, I would be wary of claiming that legal claims are impossible, although I personally find them highly unlikely (in this case). --Kaganer (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't an argument with that gray-scale just tip towards the "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to part of the COM:PCP. We should not care about the feasibility of a suit, but if there could be reasonable (if the copyright owner were another person) suit to begin with. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't until I started writing my reply that I noticed that at the June 2024 the Constitutional Court of Russia expanded the norm on Article 1276 of Russian Civil Law, Part IV, including a sculpture located in a place open to public visits (see https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_479435/#dst100057)

(Rus) «Не требуется получения согласия автора или иного правообладателя скульптуры и выплаты ему вознаграждения, в том числе если соответствующий информационно-справочный материал распространяется в целях получения прибыли,
...
4. Настоящее Постановление окончательно, не подлежит обжалованию, вступает в силу со дня официального опубликования, действует непосредственно и не требует подтверждения другими органами и должностными лицами.»

(Eng) "It is not necessary to obtain the consent of the author or other copyright holder of the sculpture and pay him remuneration, including if the relevant information and reference material is distributed for profit,
...
4. This Resolution is final, not subject to appeal, comes into force on the day of official publication, operates directly and does not require confirmation by other bodies and officials. ..."

This is final decision on old case from 2019, see [1].

Unfortunately, Article 1276 of Russian Civil Law is relevance for "FairUse" principle, but not for "freedom of panorama" (that is linked with another article, 1274, where sculpture was not included). This is sadly. And we still do not have representative judicial practice on such issues. See more in Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia. --Kaganer (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)