Talk:Atomium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Architecture (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Belgium (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Public Art (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Public Art, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of public art on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Lights up?[edit]

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)

Reference to panoramic view of Brussels[edit]

The reference to a panoramic view of Brussels is ambiguous. Does this mean that the sphere CONTAINS a panoramic painting or photo of the city, or that there is a panoramic VIEW of the city from the top???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee M (talkcontribs) 19:07, 2 September 2003

OK, this has now been clarified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.68 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2004

2003 repairs[edit]

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)

Original Magnification[edit]

The original magnification listed was wrong, according to the official Web site at http://www.atomium.be/HTMLsite/dyn/page.php?translation_id=9&info_id=3&lid=3 Paul From Ottawa

Atomium Architect died[edit]

The architect of the Atomium, André Waterkeyn, just died today 5 October 2005 at the age of 88. The Atomium is finished, but will be open to the public around January 2006.

Waterkeyn owned the reproduction rights of 'his' Atomium and because it was not dismounted as foreseen, he has been earning money on copyrights all his life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.146.124 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2005

renovation[edit]

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)

copyright[edit]

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).

Delete the picture[edit]

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)

Lease & Original Lifespan[edit]

I recently visited the Atomium and purchased a Book and DVD on Expo '58. During the film it mentioned the original lease on the building was 10 years and later extended to 25 years. So I'm not sure where the statement about the Atomium's 6 month original lifespan came from.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.27 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2007

Renovation costs[edit]

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)

"Unit cell of an iron crystal"[edit]

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)

Contradictory sentences about which spheres are open[edit]

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)

Is it a Building or Sculpture?[edit]

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)

Possible citation for sale of triangular piece[edit]

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[edit]

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

Copyright discussion[edit]

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)