Talk:Atomium/Archive 1

Archive 1

renovation

atomium was renovated which was finished not long ago, i guess wikipedia could use a photo with the freshly shnining balls now... [1] --137.120.3.212 12:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Renovation costs

Is it correct that the latest renovations to the Atomium costed more than 2 billion euro? If yes, should this not be added to the article? --The Beagle 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

2 billion seems quite exaggerated. After some research on Belgian news sites, I`ve discovered that the total cost was 26 million euro`s, some 2,5 million above the original budget, the rise was due to higher prices for materials as copper.--84.198.250.212 18:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory sentences about which spheres are open

The top sphere provides a panoramic view of Brussels.

The three uppermost spheres lack vertical support and hence are not open to the public for safety reasons.

Surely the top sphere is open to the public, and therefore it isn't the "three uppermost spheres" that are closed. Also, is there any reference for the claim that three spheres are closed because they "lack vertical support"? JRawle (Talk) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unit cell of an iron crystal"

Unless there's a specific reference that this was the intention, surely it's just a generic body-centered cubic unit cell? -- The Anome (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the 165 million scale only works for iron. Plus iron is what it's mostly made of! JRawle (Talk) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: Visited this week: the guidebooks to hand - not necessarily the finest guidebooks available - insisted that this was a repesentation of an . . . a t o m . . . of iron. Much discussed, but no way found to give an equivalence. 'An iron crystal'; I have no skills/knowledge in crystallography, so I trust the suggestion is accurate. Autochthony wrote - 2240z/2 October 2010. 86.167.117.177 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

copyright

Unusually for a building, the Atomium is copyrighted, which makes the publishing of self-made pictures of it illegal.

I'm removed this statement because the phrase "is copyrighted" is meaningless. If someone wants to replace it with something about exactly what way it is "copyrighted" and what if anything is done to enforce it. --87.82.1.39 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this again, after an anonymous User:81.165.0.107 replaced the claim together with a "reference". However their reference was merely an architecture website that repeats the claim. It is not authoritative. More importantly, there is absolutely no suggestion on the Atomium's official website that people cannot publish photographs. The idea that they will go around suing people for giving them publicity is really quite ridiculous. --Shantavira 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is some truth in this. Apparently all buildings in Belgium are 'copyright'. To publish photo's of them you need permission of the architect. But this is only enforced for a few buildings. For the Atomium this is done by SABAM, and they are known to use some 'convincing' manners :) More information in this Indymedia article: [[2]] (in Dutch). Apeeters 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately this is true Shantavira (the official website has a pop-up window in the photo-album explaining this). However I wonder if photo's of replica's or miniatures are also subject to copyright? One could, for example, photograph the replica in Mini Europe nearby. --Steerpike 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The french editors of this acticle have an ongoing issue-solving atempt with SABAM, and aparently someone found an equivalent excuse to fair use in french law. Chaeck their talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.150.102 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2007

commons:category:Atomium says too you can't take photos of it. – b_jonas 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised that this was not in the article. Therefore I have added section "Worldwide copyright claimed" with two citations. Read the legal demand from SABAM at Chilling Effects ([3]) to see what exactly they are claiming ("Asbl Atomium is the copyright proprietor of the artwork "Atomium" throughout the world."). See also Atomium contact page which has "The image of the Atomium is protected since its construction. It's mandatory to gain approval from the asbl/vzw Atomium and the SABAM, before copying or broadcasting the image of the Atomium. It is also necessary to mention "copyright asbl/vzw Atomium". -84user (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From the section describing what use is allowed:

[...] as long as these pictures are displayed at a low resolution (600 pixels maximum, resolution of 72dpi)

600 pixels, eh? 24x25 pixels isn't very big, especially at 72 dpi. 216.188.252.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Lights up?

There are a lot of pictures on the internet of the Atomiom at night and it lights up? There is no reference to this in the wiki page. Can someone elaborate on how it lights and the pattern of the lights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.30.253 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible citation for sale of triangular piece

A possible citation for the statement "A triangular piece about 2 m long sold for €1,000," can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9368496/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/belgium-unveils-restored-atomium-landmark/#.TkOFw4Lcyqt. The units will needing converting however. It's also seems approximations have been used on one of both ends as the figures don't match. Vampus (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Image

Why is a perfectly good image replaced by an old photo of the Atomium before restoration?--Wester (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it a Building or Sculpture?

The term monument seems to encompass both buildings and sculptures, but which is the Atomium? Would it best be described as a building or a sculpture?. I'd be interested in your opinions. 9carney (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Atomium: first and foremost, it's a totally crazy, fantastical, almost sci-fi building, which defies the imagination and lets your emotions run wild." - Henri Simons, Director of Atomium asbl. 9carney (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright discussion

Is the fact the copyright issue of the building so important that is justifies taking half the page? Surely there's more to tell about the building than its copyright status? 78.29.235.168 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete the picture

Doesn't the copyright law also affect Wikipedia? Go check out the Dutch ("Nederlands") article, they have resorted to showing a Euro coin with the Atomium on it....Evilbu 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the photo would be a bad idea. I like the Atomium, so I wish photos of it be spread, not confined nor black-covered. Nnemo (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You can do that if you want. But you are not wikipedia (also not me) but your act is illegal. So if you want to do illegal act do it outside wikipedia. Vdkdaan (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the copyright law of the United States. This like plainly spells it out

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.[4] --Agamemnus (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

renovation

atomium was renovated which was finished not long ago, i guess wikipedia could use a photo with the freshly shnining balls now... [5] --137.120.3.212 12:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Renovation costs

Is it correct that the latest renovations to the Atomium costed more than 2 billion euro? If yes, should this not be added to the article? --The Beagle 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

2 billion seems quite exaggerated. After some research on Belgian news sites, I`ve discovered that the total cost was 26 million euro`s, some 2,5 million above the original budget, the rise was due to higher prices for materials as copper.--84.198.250.212 18:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory sentences about which spheres are open

The top sphere provides a panoramic view of Brussels.

The three uppermost spheres lack vertical support and hence are not open to the public for safety reasons.

Surely the top sphere is open to the public, and therefore it isn't the "three uppermost spheres" that are closed. Also, is there any reference for the claim that three spheres are closed because they "lack vertical support"? JRawle (Talk) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unit cell of an iron crystal"

Unless there's a specific reference that this was the intention, surely it's just a generic body-centered cubic unit cell? -- The Anome (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the 165 million scale only works for iron. Plus iron is what it's mostly made of! JRawle (Talk) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Autochthony writes: Visited this week: the guidebooks to hand - not necessarily the finest guidebooks available - insisted that this was a repesentation of an . . . a t o m . . . of iron. Much discussed, but no way found to give an equivalence. 'An iron crystal'; I have no skills/knowledge in crystallography, so I trust the suggestion is accurate. Autochthony wrote - 2240z/2 October 2010. 86.167.117.177 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

copyright

Unusually for a building, the Atomium is copyrighted, which makes the publishing of self-made pictures of it illegal.

I'm removed this statement because the phrase "is copyrighted" is meaningless. If someone wants to replace it with something about exactly what way it is "copyrighted" and what if anything is done to enforce it. --87.82.1.39 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this again, after an anonymous User:81.165.0.107 replaced the claim together with a "reference". However their reference was merely an architecture website that repeats the claim. It is not authoritative. More importantly, there is absolutely no suggestion on the Atomium's official website that people cannot publish photographs. The idea that they will go around suing people for giving them publicity is really quite ridiculous. --Shantavira 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is some truth in this. Apparently all buildings in Belgium are 'copyright'. To publish photo's of them you need permission of the architect. But this is only enforced for a few buildings. For the Atomium this is done by SABAM, and they are known to use some 'convincing' manners :) More information in this Indymedia article: [[6]] (in Dutch). Apeeters 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately this is true Shantavira (the official website has a pop-up window in the photo-album explaining this). However I wonder if photo's of replica's or miniatures are also subject to copyright? One could, for example, photograph the replica in Mini Europe nearby. --Steerpike 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The french editors of this acticle have an ongoing issue-solving atempt with SABAM, and aparently someone found an equivalent excuse to fair use in french law. Chaeck their talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.150.102 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2007

commons:category:Atomium says too you can't take photos of it. – b_jonas 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised that this was not in the article. Therefore I have added section "Worldwide copyright claimed" with two citations. Read the legal demand from SABAM at Chilling Effects ([7]) to see what exactly they are claiming ("Asbl Atomium is the copyright proprietor of the artwork "Atomium" throughout the world."). See also Atomium contact page which has "The image of the Atomium is protected since its construction. It's mandatory to gain approval from the asbl/vzw Atomium and the SABAM, before copying or broadcasting the image of the Atomium. It is also necessary to mention "copyright asbl/vzw Atomium". -84user (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From the section describing what use is allowed:

[...] as long as these pictures are displayed at a low resolution (600 pixels maximum, resolution of 72dpi)

600 pixels, eh? 24x25 pixels isn't very big, especially at 72 dpi. 216.188.252.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Lights up?

There are a lot of pictures on the internet of the Atomiom at night and it lights up? There is no reference to this in the wiki page. Can someone elaborate on how it lights and the pattern of the lights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.30.253 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible citation for sale of triangular piece

A possible citation for the statement "A triangular piece about 2 m long sold for €1,000," can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9368496/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/belgium-unveils-restored-atomium-landmark/#.TkOFw4Lcyqt. The units will needing converting however. It's also seems approximations have been used on one of both ends as the figures don't match. Vampus (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Image

Why is a perfectly good image replaced by an old photo of the Atomium before restoration?--Wester (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it a Building or Sculpture?

The term monument seems to encompass both buildings and sculptures, but which is the Atomium? Would it best be described as a building or a sculpture?. I'd be interested in your opinions. 9carney (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Atomium: first and foremost, it's a totally crazy, fantastical, almost sci-fi building, which defies the imagination and lets your emotions run wild." - Henri Simons, Director of Atomium asbl. 9carney (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright discussion

Is the fact the copyright issue of the building so important that is justifies taking half the page? Surely there's more to tell about the building than its copyright status? 78.29.235.168 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete the picture

Doesn't the copyright law also affect Wikipedia? Go check out the Dutch ("Nederlands") article, they have resorted to showing a Euro coin with the Atomium on it....Evilbu 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the photo would be a bad idea. I like the Atomium, so I wish photos of it be spread, not confined nor black-covered. Nnemo (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You can do that if you want. But you are not wikipedia (also not me) but your act is illegal. So if you want to do illegal act do it outside wikipedia. Vdkdaan (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the copyright law of the United States. This like plainly spells it out: (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.[8] --Agamemnus (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So in other words, it is not illegal. --Agamemnus (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-reference

"The model can be shown as Austria has Freedom of Panorama" is an completely inappropriate self-reference.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? This is not a self-reference at all, it's a reference to the A******'s (Can I even say the name?) ridiculous claims of copyright over photographs of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. What is the reliable source for the statement: "The model can be shown as Austria has Freedom of Panorama"?--Anders Feder (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want better sourcing for a statement like that, that would be a separate question. Nor a hard one to source. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Then please do - the suspense is unbearable.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

[9] is not a reliable source for general statements about whether not "the model can be shown" - it is solely a source for what the law is in Austria. Extending it to a general statement applying even outside Austria is WP:OR.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed some of the Freedom of Panorama soapboxing. Coverage in reliable sources is somewhere between scarce and non-existent, and still that section is the longest in the article. That seems like undue weight to me, and the images were even worse than the text. Huon (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources were found discussing that only images of the Austrian model can be shown, that might be a worthwhile topic for discussion in this article. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, however, mentioning it in the caption violates WP:SYN and WP:SOAPBOX. The same goes for the "censored due to lack of freedom of panorama rights" caption, and the censored image is useless, too, since it (obviously) does not show the Atomium. Huon (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of photographs in the US

I have mentioned this article in a recent request to WMF legal for a topic to be posted at meta:Wikilegal. The email sent to WMF-legal was:

I am suggesting the following topic for Wikilegal:

Copyright status in the United States of pictorial representations of foreign architectural works

In most countries, the architectural works are given copyright protection like other works. However, many countries lack such an exemption and architectural works are protected by copyright. While Commons has a policy that works need to be in the public domain or freely licensed, English Wikipedia does not have such a policy and has a policy (Wikipedia:Non-U.S. Copyright) that says only US copyright applies. However, there has been debate on the English Wikipedia over whether pictures of foreign buildings in countries without such a copyright exemption (ie. without Freedom of Panorama) are copyrighted by their creator in the US.

WMF has already published Pictoral Representations Architectural Works (sic) at Wikilegal, but it does not specifically address the US copyright status of pictorial representations of architectural works located outside the US in a country where the architectural works are protected by copyright law.

In my opinion, the above advice and the exemption in copyright law (17 USC Sect.120(a)) apply to all pictorial representations of architectural works, regardless of their origin. However, the people who claim that the architect does have copyright to photos in the US believe that copyright treaties entered into by the US require the US to give protection to the foreign work the same as the source country.

One example of the impact this issue has is the Atomium article on the English Wikipedia. Since a replica is on public display in a country with a Freedom of Panorama exemption (Austria) and a photograph with a CC license is available of the model, all attempts to add a photograph of the actual building have resulted in the images being deleted (even under Fair Use using a CC-licensed photo, because of the presence of the photograph of the model).

Of course, I am very aware of the disclaimers that the WMF legal team cannot specifically provide legal advice to members the community and any published information on Wikilegal is not "legal advice" in the legal sense of that term. However, clarifying US law as it applies to foreign architectural works would be a huge benefit to the community. Again, Commons community-adopted policy is that works need to be free (PD/CC) in both the US and source country, but English Wikipedia and many other WMF projects do not have such restrictions and providing some clarity to this issue would be a great benefit to those communities.

While I hope they publish a page on this topic, I just want remark the the Worldwide copyright claims section of this page mostly relies on statements made by the copyright owners/representatives, not by third-parties discussing the legal status. Images of the building are not protected by copyright in the US and Wikipedia is only subject to US copyright law (per policy: Wikipedia:Non-U.S. Copyrights). This is in contrast to Commons, which considers copyright in both the US & source country. The Berne Convention only requires the US to protect foreign works the same way it would be protected in the US. It does not require the US to protect works the way they are protected in the source country. 17 USC §120(a) states: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." Nothing in this exemption says it only applies to architectural works in the US. In the US, pictures of architectural works have no copyright for the architect regardless of where the architectural work is located, and English Wikipedia only considers US copyright law per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. Copyrights. AHeneen (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that this is why we have templates such as Template:FoP-USonly. AHeneen (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This might sound like a simple question but how does one pronounce the name Atomium? Although I am a native speaker of English I do not find the pronunciation immediately obvious which is often the case when reading a new word. I have tried to find a video or audio recording with Atomium pronounced but have had no success. Tk420 (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Check out this video around minute 21:15. I had the same doubt as you. I hope it's helpful! 188.85.102.99 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The accent in the video sounds like General American which is the most taught English language accent to second language speakers. I will hold on to it as provisional until I know how it sounds in Received Pronunciation and the local accent if there is any difference. Tk420 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Atomium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313135640/http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/42.php to http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/42.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525235525/http://www.pcpro.co.uk:80/macuser/news/190266/100-photoshoppers-wanted-to-erase-copyright-building.html to http://www.pcpro.co.uk/macuser/news/190266/100-photoshoppers-wanted-to-erase-copyright-building.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080701230956/http://blog.atomium.be:80/page/Copyright-photo---Foto-copyright.aspx to http://blog.atomium.be/page/Copyright-photo---Foto-copyright.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130905203433/http://www.expo58.eu/ to http://www.expo58.eu
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.brusselsdiscovery.com/brussels/atomium

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Atomium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcpro.co.uk/macuser/news/190266/100-photoshoppers-wanted-to-erase-copyright-building.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.atomium.be/page/Copyright-photo---Foto-copyright.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.expo58.eu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724013016/http://www.brussels.be/artdet.cfm/5678 to http://www.brussels.be/artdet.cfm/5678

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"perceived (sic)"

This is clearly an over-literal translation of the French word "perçus", which is used among other things when sums of money are duly paid (in this case, the royalties). Perhaps the original quote was in English, but I don't think it helps if a Wikipedia article simply reproduces mangled English with no further explanation - "sic" simply tells us it's meaningless in English, but doesn't explain to English-speaking readers what the intended meaning was.

Not sure how Wikipedia should deal with cases like this, but the emphasis should surely be on supplying as much information as possible, rather than on creating riddles.213.127.210.95 (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

2003 repairs

Before I deleted it, User:Lee M asked (on the article page) whether the mooted 2003 repairs had indeed been done. Anyone know? -- Finlay McWalter 03:59, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)