Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Dubai Evolution.ogv
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep, there was already a debate on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa and this file was kept. Then I don't know why to re-open this debate. Jeriby (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - 3D is not included on the UAE copyright Law --Common-Man | My Interactions 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - As per the previous deletion request. Moreover, this video has to originate in the UAE for UAE laws to apply. -- Orionist ★ talk 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where did it originate? If that's France, then you're no better off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete I don't think as per the previous deletion request is relevant; that had a lot of things to discuss, and this was a marginal one--one user even said "ZooFari suggested below that we open another DR, I'm OK with that." One of the rights of the architectural works--basically the sole one in the US--is to protect the work from other architects. The hearts and the guts of an architectural work are just as key as the flashy exterior--in fact, COM:FOP#France cites a court making basically this point, when "the court excluded that the owner of a hotel, who had made extensive repairs and enhancements to the buildings at high costs, could claim exclusive rights to the image of that hotel".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep there is no good reason for deletion Gérard Janot (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - no FoP is a nonsense reason, for this is not panorama - Jcb (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Architectural copyright protects the heart and soul of a building. Especially as copyright in FOP nations show, it's there to protect the building architecturally as much as photography. This reproduces the building much as a blueprint or a non-virtual building would. Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC) (The question in the last DR about what the country of origin is is interesting; but France offers as much protection as Dubai, and if I had to argue the case, I'd say this is a derivative work even in nations with FOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, there was a 1st debate on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa and this file was kept. Then it was kept a 2nd time here. It's not usual to re-open 3 times a deletion debate, then I will maintain my "keep" vote. Thanks. Jeriby (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which is the same non-argument you used on the first debate on this file, the one above The debate on all the images was clearly broad enough that it's irrelevant; the points of law surrounding this video are distinct from the images surrounding a photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:DW Teofilo (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - simple geometric shapes are used, this animation doesn't contain sufficient details to be a copyright infringement - Jcb (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep FOP not relevant here, no textures just a 3D simple work. Why does everyone wanna delete this so much!--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- FOP is not relevant here, which is why I didn't use it here. A texture wouldn't matter in the case of a statue, why should it matter in the case of a building.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Question..Is 3D works copyrighted if its COM:DW ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)