File talk:Pont de Brotonne, 2019.jpeg

IronGargoyle, I guess your creation of the file is rolling with someone's punch, but as I have said on Commons, I find it absurd for anyone to claim that photographs of bridges in France are non-free because they are works of architectural art. You have included this statement in the page –

Although this image is free under US copyright law and thus acceptable on the English Wikipedia, it is believed to be non-free in its home country. This image should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be proven that depictions of the architectural work are free in the country where the work is located, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States.

That "it is believed to be non-free" does not say by whom. Do you mind adding here who believes that and why? Moonraker (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: I am probably not the best person to ask, as I strongly agree with your take on French bridges. I don't believe that they can be copyrighted, but it also doesn't seem like an argument other administrators on Wikimedia Commons are willing to listen to. As a consequence, I have been moving French bridge images over to the English Wikipedia which uses U.S. law on freedom of panorama. There was a discussion that took place several months ago at the Village Pump on Wikimedia Commons, and sadly many agreed that bridges were copyrightable in France (without evidence and without relevant case law in my opinion). If you want to read more or find someone else to ask, I would suggest taking a look at this discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, IronGargoyle. What opinionated opinions Rosenzweig has. He does not even have the beginnings of an understanding of reasoning, let alone law. It seems likely to be correct that in France an architectural design itself is protected, for a time, but there is of course nothing in that conversation (or anywhere else) to make the case that anyone other than the photographer can claim a copyright in a photograph of what was built. And I see Rosenzweig is utterly vague about his belief - "apparently" is not a reference. Sadly, Wikimedia is full of people who develop opinions without having any grasp of the subject or finding any authority they can rely on. Anyway, I'll add a note on the page for this photograph I took a few years ago. Moonraker (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]