Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B767-381 JA8569 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg
Copyrighted characters from the show Pokemon. 1989 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way this is de minimis. The Pokemon characters are the main purpose of this entire photo. They are large, identifiable, and the reason this photo was taken. The previous keep closure fails to even provide a rationale as to why this is de minimis. It isn't per our own rules on the matter. Majora (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- multiple DRs for the same reason were kept because main object is the aircraft. Focussing on the Pokemon characters would not be permitted though.--Denniss (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- That explanation does not hold water for this image. At all. The entire reason for this photo was due to the Pokemon livery. The title and its use clearly show that. This is one of the clearest abuses of the de minimis rules I've ever seen here. COM:DM#Guidelines #6 certainly applies and #7 most likely does. This does not fall within even the most expansive definition of de minimis and your previous close without even a semblance of a rationale was entirely inappropriate. --Majora (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you start to piss on me I'd say your reasoning is BS. There are lots of images of aircraft without a special livery so why are those taken at all? They are taken because the aircraft is object of interest.--Denniss (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- This photo wasn't taken for the aircraft. It was taken for the images on the side of the aircraft. Anyone that argues otherwise is not really making a good argument. It is like arguing that a photo of the Mona Lisa is really focusing on the crowds in front of it. Totally illogical. As for your question a lot of people take photos of aircraft because they like planes. A lot of people take photos of trains for the same reason. You are trying to compare a regular image of a plane to one that is a clear derivative work and unacceptable to be hosted here. --Majora (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- If you start to piss on me I'd say your reasoning is BS. There are lots of images of aircraft without a special livery so why are those taken at all? They are taken because the aircraft is object of interest.--Denniss (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- That explanation does not hold water for this image. At all. The entire reason for this photo was due to the Pokemon livery. The title and its use clearly show that. This is one of the clearest abuses of the de minimis rules I've ever seen here. COM:DM#Guidelines #6 certainly applies and #7 most likely does. This does not fall within even the most expansive definition of de minimis and your previous close without even a semblance of a rationale was entirely inappropriate. --Majora (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Under Star Athletica, the aesthetic elements of utilitarian objects can be protected by copyright if they are physically or conceptually seperable from the utilitarian object. The advertising on this plane can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article, and is therefore protected by copyright under US law. One can also use a freedom of panorama lens in this case, which also indicates that the art is protected by copyright. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
