Talk:National pavilions at the Venice Biennale
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Capital "P" on "pavilion"? edit
I renamed Belgian Pavilion to upper-case, following most sources, without realising there were many other articles using the lower-case P. Which should we be using across the articles? User:Czar? There's probably some difference in sources depending on whether the writer is talking about the pavilions in general and mentioning the Belgian one, and talking about the Belgian pavilion as a building in its own right. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I went with lowercase because that's what I saw most often in the sources. To complicate things, "pavilion" has two meanings: a physical location and, more abstractly, a country's national representation. More often than not, sources refer to the latter, "the American pavilion at the Venice Biennale", rather than the building itself, the [sometimes proper noun building] American Pavilion. For the sake of consistency, and as most national representation is not done in a fixed, physical location, I went with the former. I'm amenable, but that's my logic. What do you think? Thanks for the coordinates on the articles, by the way! czar 10:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Lower-case seems fine to me. I hadn't appreciated the nuance of meaning, will bear it in mind in future edits. Might be a good idea to clarify this article's introduction to cover that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Pavilion photos and freedom of panorama copyright edit
I didn't add photos to the individual pavilion articles because almost all photos of the current pavilions are protected by freedom of panorama copyright.
Pictures from public places don't enjoy any exception in Italian copyright law; rather, they are subject to additional law restrictions, a sort of reverse FOP.
- Object still under copyright (as recent buildings, subjects to architect's copyright) only allow "quotation right" 633/1941 art. 70 and a minimal and never implemented "fair use" 633/1941 art. 70 c. 1-bis.[1]
- Additionally, photos of any cultural heritage asset are generally subject to preemptive authorisation, a fee and other restriction due to the cultural heritage and landscape law[2] which is a non-copyright restriction.
The following are considered cultural heritage assets: state-owned things with some artistic, historic, archeological or ethno-antropological interest and libraries, galleries, museums and archives collections, unless explicitly removed on a case by case basis; other items declared cultural heritage by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities. The national catalog of cultural heritage assets is not publicly accessible or does not exist yet. Any artwork or building should be assumed actively forbidden if older than 50 years (or 70 years in some cases since 2017 42/2004 art. 11 c. 1d.
...
For Wiki Loves Monuments participants, an agreement between the Ministry and Wikimedia has allowed in the past to publish certain photos of cultural heritage assets on Commons, provided that for the ministry-run monuments
{{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}is added to the respective file descriptions.
- Note: Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free.
...
References
- ^ art. 70, c. 1-bis: "È consentita la libera pubblicazione attraverso la rete internet, a titolo gratuito, di immagini e musiche a bassa risoluzione o degradate, per uso didattico o scientifico e solo nel caso in cui tale utilizzo non sia a scopo di lucro."
- ^ (in Italian) «Il Ministero, le regioni e gli altri enti pubblici territoriali possono consentire la riproduzione nonché l'uso strumentale e precario dei beni culturali che abbiano in consegna, fatte salve le disposizioni di cui al comma 2 e quelle in materia di diritto d'autore»; §107(1) «Nessun canone è dovuto per le riproduzioni richieste da privati per uso personale o per motivi di studio, ovvero da soggetti pubblici per finalità di valorizzazione. I richiedenti sono comunque tenuti al rimborso delle spese sostenute all'amministrazione concedente» ( §108(3)). it:Libertà di panorama#Italia.
See, for example,
- c:Commons:Deletion requests/Venice Biennale pavilions and buildings
- c:Commons:Deletion requests/Venice Biennale pavilions (United States of America)
- c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Venice Biennale pavillions
- c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biennale Di Venezia Pavillon Of Sweden And Norway 2007.jpg
(My comment in the first request explains most in depth.) Essentially, if the façade/building is unchanged since its early construction and it's been 70 years since the architect's death, the photo might be okay? And maybe free use photos of the buildings pre-renovation could work as well? But even then, there's also a question of whether the pavilions are "cultural heritage assets" protected beyond simple FoP. Otherwise, Italy has really strict copyright rules and we should be nominating the many questionable ones for discussion/deletion.
czar 10:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Noted. That's a shame. I'd transferred a couple from Flickr, which I'll get taken down, but the rest I was just lifting from Commons, so it's probably time for another cleanup there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
China edit
Some sources
- https://books.google.com/books?id=ByqXDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA130
- https://books.google.com/books?id=8GwzF6mFBBAC&pg=PA71
czar 02:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)