Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waterneverstorf, Park.JPG

‎File:Waterneverstorf, Park.JPG: {{question}}
← Older revision
Revision as of 00:24, 24 March 2013
Line 17:
Line 17:
 
:* Freedom of speech would cover things where you want to make a specific expression about some grievance, political or social problem. In such case there would be a weighting of proprietary rights and the freedom of press, speech and art. In the case of BVG (Berlin Transport Company) versus a documentary film about graffiti, the [https://www.telemedicus.info/urteile/Kunstfreiheit/1394-KG-Berlin-Az-10-U-13612-Abwaegung-Kunstfreiheit-bei-Doku-ueber-Sprayer-Szene.html appeal court decided] pro freedom of speech and against the BVG's proprietary rights.
 
:* Freedom of speech would cover things where you want to make a specific expression about some grievance, political or social problem. In such case there would be a weighting of proprietary rights and the freedom of press, speech and art. In the case of BVG (Berlin Transport Company) versus a documentary film about graffiti, the [https://www.telemedicus.info/urteile/Kunstfreiheit/1394-KG-Berlin-Az-10-U-13612-Abwaegung-Kunstfreiheit-bei-Doku-ueber-Sprayer-Szene.html appeal court decided] pro freedom of speech and against the BVG's proprietary rights.
 
:* Regarding the argumenent from H-stt: I don't think, this will be capable. It is reasonable to assume that the renter of one thing doesn't have the same exploitation rights as the owner holds. For example in the mentioned BVG case, the court also said: ''"Gemäß § 903 BGB bleibt dem Grundstückseigentümer die Entscheidung darüber vorbehalten, ob und in welchem Umfang er den Zugang zu seinem Grundstück eröffnet. Dies kann vollständig oder eingeschränkt geschehen. Hier gestattete die Klägerin den Zutritt zu ihren Anlagen unstreitig nur zur Inanspruchnahme der von ihr angebotenen Transportleistungen."'' ..means: the owner of the property can grant restricted rights to use its property (for example to travel by the U-Bahn or live in a hotel room), but that does not mean, that the grantee has all the rights to do with the property what he wants (for example to operate a hairdresser's shop inside the hotel room or hang out a CocaCola advertisement out of the hotels window). --[[User:Alexrk2|Alexrk2]] ([[User talk:Alexrk2|talk]]) 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:* Regarding the argumenent from H-stt: I don't think, this will be capable. It is reasonable to assume that the renter of one thing doesn't have the same exploitation rights as the owner holds. For example in the mentioned BVG case, the court also said: ''"Gemäß § 903 BGB bleibt dem Grundstückseigentümer die Entscheidung darüber vorbehalten, ob und in welchem Umfang er den Zugang zu seinem Grundstück eröffnet. Dies kann vollständig oder eingeschränkt geschehen. Hier gestattete die Klägerin den Zutritt zu ihren Anlagen unstreitig nur zur Inanspruchnahme der von ihr angebotenen Transportleistungen."'' ..means: the owner of the property can grant restricted rights to use its property (for example to travel by the U-Bahn or live in a hotel room), but that does not mean, that the grantee has all the rights to do with the property what he wants (for example to operate a hairdresser's shop inside the hotel room or hang out a CocaCola advertisement out of the hotels window). --[[User:Alexrk2|Alexrk2]] ([[User talk:Alexrk2|talk]]) 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
* {{question}} How is this compared to {{tl|Soprintendenza}} and {{tl|SpomenikSVN}}? We accept images with those templates. In those cases, I think that the idea was that the restriction ''only'' applies in the country where the building is located and that you can freely use the images everywhere else in the world. Isn't this also the case here? --[[User:Stefan4|Stefan4]] ([[User talk:Stefan4|talk]]) 00:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Waterneverstorf,_Park.JPG&diff=93169454&oldid=93144826