Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg

[edit]

Pepe the Frog is part of the sign and therefore (one of) the main focus(es) of this imagesince it is intentionally included/framedin the shot; therefore not de minimis to this image. The copyright for the derivative, as well as the copyright for the original Pepe is protected in the US, --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Incidental feature, it is likely to be considered de minimis. The exact same photo could have been taken withouth this feature. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg

[edit]

Pepe is key part of the photo, COM:DM doesn't apply. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 02:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  KeepThe claim that Pepe the Frog is "a key part of the photo" is, speaking frankly, an argument which seems to have been brought up simply to get the picture deleted, and may be connected to the attempt to get the photo removed from . (An RfC deteremined that it would be kept). It's obvious to anyone that the subject of the photograph is an alt-right pro-Trump supporter holding a sign which says "Deplorables and Alt-Right Unite". The frog is clearly de minimis in the context of the entire photo, which could have the frog removed and still have the exact same meaning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not de minimis when several wikis were using this photo to illustrate that frog character. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ex post facto use of the photo for that purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with determing de minimis, which is about intrinsic characteristics, not extrinsic usage. If those wikis are using it inappropriately, the photo should be removed from the wikis, and not deleted from Commons. The photograph exists as is, and should be judged for what it is, not for what use people might do with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it has everything to do with it. If people find this photo useful to illustrate the frog without using CSS to crop it on the wiki or giving strange instructions ("to see batman, click the image, go to more details, click the image again, zoom in on the comic book sticking out of the bag of the guy on the left") it apparently shows the frog in some way that can't be considered negligible. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beyond My Kens comment doesn't seem like justification for you to photoshop the character completely out of the image. The file should be deleted instead of being selectively edited. Removing a significant portion of the poster, de minimis or not, is a major change and seems to violate Commons:Overwriting existing files. 93 (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghouston: that image was never intended to be used in articles. It is used to illustrate the concept of de minimis. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghouston: I'm not that good with blurring images, but are you thinking of something like this? FallingGravity (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity: I think that's even more confusing. He still has a sheet of paper tacked to his sign, but it shows a mystery figure now. Is it a map? Is it an outline of a state? An outline of Trump? Rorschach test? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm not that good at blurring images, at least with my current tools. FallingGravity (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I figured out how to blur the image better, and I've updated the image link. FallingGravity (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity: Better, but I generally blur beyond recognition because we are also not allowed to upload album covers scaled down to 30px. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've uploaded the blurred version. Individual Wikiprojects can still use the un-blurred photograph by uploading it locally. FallingGravity (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity: But you can see how distracting the blurred frog is. I still prefer my version, perhaps with a note in a corner to make the user aware something was removed from the picture. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: SpanishSnake started this DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they don't get to !vote twice. I've removed their "vd" template since they've already requested deletion. Thanks for noting this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete if you crop the empty space out of the image, the frog takes up around 8% of the picture, it is also part of the main subject of the photo and not incidental. Not even close to being a de minimis case. The logo on the jacket is an example of de minimis.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Beyond My Ken. Also, Wikimedia needs to be able to record current affairs. If this image were to be deleted, that would become indreasingly hard, since symbols, such as trademarks aso, are have become virtually omnipresent. In this case, the image of a frog is obviously a minor aspect of the picture as a whole, so it's not just de minimis visually, but also conceptionally. It's the far-right message that matters here, not the depiction of a frog. Asav | Talk 08:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Asav: so tell JFG and Tesser4D to stop reverting (and revert the image to the blanked or blurred version). Apparently the frog is so important we are not allowed to remove it. Can't be DM in that case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
stop censoring photos while a deletion discussion is underway. why don;t you admin lock it to enforce your version, that would teach the vlasovists. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DeleteAs a symbol of the alt-right campaign, Pepe is a crucial part when presenting the protester's view. I therefore believe the file is not a "incidental feature" of the whole file. Moreover, the focus of the file is both the protestor and his sign including Pepe per the bokeh applied in the file, so FallingGravity's point may not be appliciable here.廣九直通車 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are not overturning consensus, but determining it. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The file history where both removal and blurring of Pepe have been reverted would suggest not. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there's be any problem keeping the blurred version. But it's redundant (or at least should be uploaded to a separate file) if the original version can also be kept. --ghouston (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the way some people are arguing here is that de minimus doesn't need to be permitted on Commons at all, since the copyrighted features can always be blurred out. But Commons *does* currently accept de minimus. But it's such a grey area, I have no idea whether a US court would typically accept the de minimus claim or not in a copyright case. --ghouston (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least there's a de minimus warning on the file, so potential reusers can decide themselves whether they want to use the image, or go with the blurred version. --ghouston (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems like the way some people are arguing here is that de minimus doesn't need to be permitted on Commons at all, since the copyrighted features can always be blurred out."
This is more or less correct. There are several possible reasons for not blurring though: nobody can be bothered to do it (does not apply here), the blur would create a major distraction from the actual main subject (that's why I had removed the frog more neatly) or it is technically difficult to apply the blur (does not apply here). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I have restored the version of the image without the copyrighted character. The character's presence in the image not merely trivial, and was used in various articles to illustrate "Pepe". If Pepe's presence were trivial, his removal should not be a problem. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donald_Trump_alt-right_supporter_(32452974604).jpg&oldid=315578788"