Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crazy Horse Memorial 2010.jpg
Delete as derivative work per Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial. Kelly (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - it is a mountain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the previous deletion discussion. Kelly (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- A mountain does not become copyrighted by fashioning a nose on it; the nose is de minimis, the rest looks like any quarry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en:wikipedia with "non free 3D art tag". i trust Kelly that you will stop deleting images of this notable sculpture, as you did here [1] ? Slowking4 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't delete anything, I'm not an administrator. Kelly (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- no WP:BEFORE it's a fine coincidence that you nominate all the images. if you agree that it is derivative, then you agree that it should remain as "non free 3D art", and you are well aware of the sculptor, and not "confused" about the copyright status. NFCC 10a says "should" not "must" Slowking4 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't delete anything, I'm not an administrator. Kelly (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also, calling this a "picture of a mountain" is like calling a sculpture "a picture of a rock". Kelly (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en:wikipedia with "non free 3D art tag". i trust Kelly that you will stop deleting images of this notable sculpture, as you did here [1] ? Slowking4 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- A mountain does not become copyrighted by fashioning a nose on it; the nose is de minimis, the rest looks like any quarry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the previous deletion discussion. Kelly (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader, and agree that it should be deleted. Haven't done a lot with Commons and didn't read the previous discussions regarding this monument. I would remove but don't know how. Thanks, --Tbennert (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_6#File:Crazy_horse_memorial_comparison.jpg){kind=link}
- comment ok i have now replaced with the equivalent english wikipedia with non free 3D art tag here [2] Slowking4 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crazy_Horse_Memorial_2010-2.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: what can be seen of the sculpture here is de minimis, the rest of the landscape is not copyrightable. Rosenzweig τ 14:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel confident that this is de minimis by U.S. standards. COM:DM United States states that U.S. courts have set de minimis standard, in a very narrow manner (triviality instead of incidental inclusion). In this photo, the intent of the photo is on the monument and despite the carving being a small element here, it is not trivial. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial, as well as the prohibition conducted by its management, the guardian of late sculptor's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Applying COM:DM#An example situation in this case: "So, for example, if the monument forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the monument, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the monument was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the monument was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. If the existence of the monument makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail." This photo will not stand in front of U.S. courts and must be removed. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment It's a very small part of the photo, and I had to look at it at full screen to even see where it was. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. And fwiw I could see it on the preview (800x583). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)- Keep. This is a bit of a stretch. It is true that the main object and focus of the photo is the monument, except... there is no monument yet (safe for a tiny piece of the face)! The entire deletion rationale is based on the presence of a monument. Well, there isn't one. And obviously, the rubble from the carving can hardly be copyrightable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; even though the monument is not yet completed, the face by itself can be considered a work of sculpture and therefore enjoys copyright protection, as de minimis considers the overall purpose of the work that includes the copyrighted portion as well. —holly {chat} 20:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
