Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:VW Golf TDI Clean Diesel WAS 2010 8983.JPG

< Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:VW Golf TDI Clean Diesel WAS 2010 8983.JPG

edit

Needs discussion whether the green-and-yellow flowery-flame imagery is a) known to be in the public domain (doubtful), b) it is de minimis (arguable but probably not), or c) a copyright violation of whoever owns the rights to the artwork. My best reading of Commons:De minimis is that the odds of this being an okay file for the Commons are less than 50/50. Note: This image is on the English Wikipedia main page as of this writing. See diff of en:Template:In the news as of 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC). Davidwr (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The editor proposing deletion is a bit exageraed, the area occupied by the "flowery-flame imagery" is too small compared to the entire image, of course that de minimus applies. There have been plenty of cases of de minimus (i.e. see the Louvre pyramid) where the are occupied by the copyrighted material is even more than in this case, and the images have been kept.--Mariordo (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator, I would be glad if this was a "settled issue" in favor of "keep, per longstanding precedent" but without evidence, I couldn't assume any such precedent. Please provide some links to some recent (in the last year or two) discussions that showed that this use is well within the "de minimis" range. Based on my reading of Commons:De minimis and in particular the example of an advertising poster that was "in the background," I felt the need to bring this forward for discussion. Davidwr (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. This discussion is one of the best precedents I can think of (the sacred Louvre pyramid given the tough French restriccions to freedom of panorama and copyrights of arquitectural works): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Louvre_2007_02_24_c.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariordo (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
        • Mariordo: Can you find a better example, or find several other just-as-good examples where the close wasn't considered "close"? There are two issues that the closer of this discussion needs to keep in mind if there are no other examples
          • 1) The closer himself said "It's a borderline decision though" - this suggests against using this example as a precedent without support from similar examples.
          • 2) The car as a whole - well, excluding the part that is just painted white - is functioning an advertising banner. Now, the middle part of the car - the part with just text - is "pd-simple" but the fact that it, together with the non-pd-simple part of the advertising banner makes up 1/3 of the car and the car is, by intent, the dominant part of the image makes this distinctly different from File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg. Granted, the non-pd building in the middle is visually dominant but as the deletion discussion pointed out, you simply cannot take a picture of the courtyard without getting the copyrighted building. However, a photographer could have taken a picture of the car from another angle or possibly taken a different picture of the same-model car at the same auto show. It is very likely that by the time this picture was taken, the car was on showroom floors without the advertising-text-and-graphics, which means you could, in principle, get a picture of that car in a nice showroom environment that would not have any copyrighted elements other than the brand logo (which would almost certainly qualify as de minimus unless the photographer zoomed in on it or - and I say this with a laugh - it occupied the entire front quarter-panel and part of the door and it was shot from this angle).
        Davidwr (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mariordo. Additionally, the artist knew the decoration would be photographed since the vehicle that the decoration was applied to was to be exhibited at an auto show. Really a stretch to call this a copyvio, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The image description page did not have the proper {{delete}} page until 20:57, 24 September 2015. Until that time the template was on the "File talk:" page. The reason for the delay was that the image was cascade-protected because it was recently used on the English Wikipedia's main page. The closing admin may want to take this delay into account when deciding whether the discussion has been open long enough or not.Davidwr (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Flowery pattern is not a significant part of the useful onject. It's like a floral design on a dress photographed during a fashion show. The photograpgher is sole copyright holder and this is not a derivative work. --DHeyward (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per DM Ankry (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:VW_Golf_TDI_Clean_Diesel_WAS_2010_8983.JPG&oldid=646818817"