Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorio de Tenerife

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.

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain Spanish FOP law only allows for works that are "permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares." Whereas this auditorium clearly isn't situated in or on a public throughfare. So these images are copyrighted until an undetermined date since the artist, Santiago Calatrava, seems to still be alive.

Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


It's adjacent to the road next to the ocean. Although set back some, but all buildings are adjacent to a road to some degree and I don't thank that's what the wording of the law means by "in or on" either. Otherwise there'd zero point in even having the distinction. Like would the building of a private company in a business park qualify for FOP just because it's located near a public thoroughfare? No. That's not what the law says, or at least how the guideline is worded. What I assume it means by "in or on" is say a statue located on a traffic island. Or maybe even a museum in a public park that sees constant through traffic do the location. But I don't think any building on private property (or even public if it doesn't have constant through traffic) near, by, or adjacent to a road qualifies for FOP in Spain. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Adamant1, the Auditorio de Tenerife falls under the purview of Spanish FOP not because it is next to a public thoroughfare, but because it is on one. A thoroughfare is a place that has been dedicated for use by the public, whether for vehicular (e.g., a road) or pedestrian (e.g., a park or a square) use. Anyone can walk freely around the Auditorio at any time, as I have done to take some of the images listed above. The satellite view illustrates this well, as it shows that the Auditorio is located in the same complex as the Castle of St John the Baptist, a public beach, and the Palmetum of Santa Cruz de Tenerife --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree. If you look Google Street view the left of the property is fenced off, people need to pass a swing gate that's down to go into the underground parking lot, and there's a rope blocking access to the stairs in the front of the building. Just because can walk around the back to view the ocean doesn't make it a "thoroughfare" since access to the building and grounds is clearly restricted. Plus the term "thoroughfare" kind of insinuates a road or path forming a route between two places and there's no second place for a car or pedestrian to get to if it's blocked off. Are you seriously going to tell me the building is a public road just because they allow people at their discretion to walk behind the building? By that standard my local grocery store would be a public road because people walk through their parking lot all the time. The fact is that most businesses out there allows foot traffic through their property. Heck, my neighbor's yard and house must be a public road since he lets me walk through it to dump my trash. /s --Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a fence, rope blocking access to the stairs around the building, and a gate people to need to get through to access the underground parking lot then? Oh yeah, and the building is only for specific events. That doesn't sound like a public building to me. Also where does the law or guideline say buildings on private property next to roads, not in or on them, qualify for FOP? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Es un edificio perteneciente a una administración pública, el Cabildo Insular de Tenerife, que es el órgano de gobierno de la isla de Tenerife. Es un espacio y edificio perteneciente al gobierno de la isla de Tenerife, gestionado por una empresa pública {{cita|Auditorio de Tenerife es una empresa pública (Sociedad Anónima Unipersonal) dependiente del Cabildo Insular fundada en 2002 para gestionar la actividad del edificio con el mismo nombre, que actualmente es el principal centro de producción de espectáculos de Canarias (ver [https://auditoriodetenerife.com/es/el-auditorio/quienes-somos Quienes somos). El acceso, está regulado según el uso que desde la empresa de gestión determinan 8empresa pública). Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 16:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep "On streets" appears to be the point of contention. Interpreting that the building must be "on the street" is a silly interpretation, if it literally was on the street, cars could not pass. We have used the interpretation to mean "visible from the street" or "visible to the public". You cannot trespass on private property to take an image. This would have been handled better as a question at Village Pump, rather than diving into a massive deletion. --RAN (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the whole "visible from the street" or "visible to the public" thing only applies in countries where the law says it does. Otherwise "located in a public place" doesn't usually mean "wherever someone can take a picture of know matter the location." For instance my house that's located on private land down a long driveway wouldn't be considered "on or in a throughfare" or a public place just because someone can see the top of my chimney from the road. Except for maybe in Germany since there's a "line of sight" rule there, but their a rare exception and Spain isn't. Otherwise their law or at least legal experts would say so. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A property with a long and winding driveway is abutting a public road, which is different from the building abutting/visible-from a public road/public place. --RAN (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but "in or on a throughfare" doesn't have anything to do with how visible from the road the building is either. So... --Adamant1 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Having been there, I can say that the auditorium is located in a public area, there are no access restrictions for the outside, so it is obviously eligible for FOP. It is a government-owned building and hence is public land (see [1]). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep First time in my live that I hear that a building on Spanish soil could be a FOP violation. I've been there twice and had no problem to access the site from any side. Furthermore, the building belongs to the town hall and is therefore public [2], including the surrounding area. The only thing I agree on with Adamant1 here is that Santiago Calatrava didn't die over 70 years ago. Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment it's not even clear Spain has freedom of panorama Adamant1, you wrote this on the other similar DR, and I think you may have a point here, so I removed my 'Keep' vote. The Spanish FOP Wiki page lists the case as 'unclear', and the general FOP wiki page, although listing spain as 'FOP - OK' at the beginning, further down specifically highlights the Auditorio de Tenerife as a potential exception, because it is trademarked (and indeed it is). I'm unsure if this constitutes sufficient grounds to delete all images, or if we just need some sort of template that highlights exceptions (similar to the Personality rights template applied to portratis). I hope that someone that is well into the details can weight in here. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really exactly what the miss-understanding was there or how I relates to this. Let alone what you think I should have asked about on the Village Pump. Both cases seem pretty cut and dry to me. Especially the other DR that your referring to. Even if the images are kept in both cases it's my job to ask on the Village Pump about every little nuance of the law just because the copyright status of certain images might be ambiguous. Especially in a case like this one where the country doesn't even seem to have FOP in the first place. It's extremely unrealistic to expect someone to ask on the Village Pump if something in a guideline is correct every time they want to nominate an image for deletion. "Oh hey, anyone here mind if I follow the guidelines?" Sure RAN. If anything the people who disagree with it should be asking the questions. Spain's issues with FOP seem pretty clear though and I'm not the one who disagrees with the legal experts or case law about it. So there isn't really anything I personally should or want to ask about on the village pump. The same goes for the other DR. Although your free to start a conversation on the Village Pump about either if you think they need be discussed since your the one who disagrees with the status quo in both cases. My guess is that you won't though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Mike Peel and consensus, this appears to be permanently located in a public place. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]