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.
Photographer does not own the rights to the Nintendo artwork and plush toy featured in this image. The image is being used to illustrate Mario articles, so there is no claim to de minimis. If the image were altered or cropped to remove the copyrighted material it would useless. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright paranoïa.
The photograph is showing the Wii Nintendo Stand, De Minimis does apply. Will you delete an ahtlete photograph because the sponsor logo are on his clothing ?
Besides, I absolutely don't care about the usage here. if you believe the wikipedia usage is illegal, fell free to remove the usage.
Do you realize I am not the one who put the image there ? The fact someone might use it wrongly does not affect the status of the image. I claim De Minimis because I took the image as part of illustrating the festival, I claim it because you cannot take a photograph of the stand without taking the copyrighted symbols... If the usage you spotted is not legit, just remove it where it is not legit? if this image was used in some kind of retarded vandalism, would you claim it should be deleted? Esby (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it can be used to illustrate a Mario article shows that it does not meet commons:de minimis. If it is significant enough that a thumbnail image can be used to illustrate the copyrighted subject, then it is not so insignificant that it could be reasonably judged as de minimis. Commons does not allow fair use. "If the usage you spotted is not legit, just remove it where it is not legit?" Images on Commons have no illegitimate use outside of personality rights and trademark issues. That's what Commons is for, if you can't use it freely, it isn't free. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 23:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. You can use most de minimis images to illustrate the de minimis subject. It is common to illustrate articles about Finnish statues (only limited FoP) with an image of the site, with the statue visible. That is totally legitimate (given the site really is the subject of the photo). De minimis might not apply in that article (fair use probably would), but it would in an article about the site, unless the statue is mentioned. --LPfi (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of the photograph is the stand, not the panel before it. De Mimimis is not about how something could not be used to illustrate a copyrighted concept, but about the copyright laws limitation. A photograph can include copyrighted-works, the legal restrictions are that you are not allowed to crop on the copyrighted parts: Using the image and saying 'looks at the bottom part' to illustrate is equivalent to directly crop on that part, so it's not allowed and it has nothing to do with the photograph being De-Minimis or not. This is a wikipedia issue, not a Commons issue as the photograph have a subject that makes the photograph De-Minimis. Besides, there would be nothing illegal to have a photograph of a Stand featuring Mario in it... Esby (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above. I think the image could be cropped to not so clearly feature the panel on the right, which now draws unnecessary attention (half the panel would be enough). --LPfi (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCommons:De minimis doesn't have an entry for France, but the general sense of DM is that the copyrighted work is incidental to the photograph. In this case, if all the copyrighted elements were removed from the photo it would be meaningless; the elements are essential to the meaning and clearly included deliberately in the composition in order to convey that meaning, as the filename shows. This is notde minimis. Rd232 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the 'deliberately' here is a bit bold . I did not mount the Nintendo Stand nor I did participate to its design. I took a photograph of the stand, which includes several copyrighted elements: the mascott in background, the image of the game (which seems to be related to Street Figther II), a promotionnal photograph by an unknown photographer to the left of the mascott, the same photograph below the screen, and finally the pan we are disussing of, including Mario and Luigi and another character. As you cannot make a photograph without including at least one of those element, this is incidental, the actual angle is due to show the screen a bit and the player playing the game and it is actually quite random between a few possible other angles... Esby (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to take a photo of the Nintendo Stand. How do you do this? By including the recognisably Nintendo elements. Those elements are not incidental, even if slightly different choices about their inclusion would have been possible. You could have taken a photo of just the person playing, without showing any copyrighted elements, but that would have been a much less interesting picture, or at any rate a very different picture. NB By "deliberately" I only mean in a photographic "taking a good picture" sense, I'm sure you didn't mean to violate copyright. Rd232 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken: I'm trying to photography a stand. This means taking an overall picture of the stand. Please drop out the composition argument. Here it's a Nintendo stand, so there might (and will be) copyrighted elements around the Nintendo thema... If we were talking of a real composition, for example, an svg or a promotional poster including copyrighted elements, I'd agree with you, but it's just not the case. This is just a casual shot to illustrate the Stand... Esby (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDe minimis in France is more complex than if it is used to illustrate X then it's not De minimis, the case on tour Montparnasse (C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980) is clear about that, it's not the size that matters. When shooting at Mang'Azur it's hard to avoid any copyrighted elements (which is exactly the spirit of the case I've cited). --PierreSelim (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Montparnasse is an FOP case, it's not comparable at all to this indoor picture of a temporary installation. Quoting the relevant part, key bit bolded: « s’agissant d’un élément d’un ensemble architectural qui constitue le cadre de vie de nombreux habitants d’un quartier de Paris (…), le droit à protection cesse lorsque l’œuvre en question est reproduite non pas en tant qu’œuvre d’art, mais par nécessité, au cours d’une prise de vue dans un lieu public ; sur la carte postale litigieuse, la Tour Montparnasse n’a pas été photographiée isolément mais dans son cadre naturel qui ne fait l’objet d’aucune protection. »[1]Rd232 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your remarks, it's quite true, however for the judge it's not a FOP case (the notion does not exist in France, and Jastrow's post is also called De minimis non curat praetor), it's just a case were a copyrighted element is ruled to be accessory (i.e. De minimis) on a picture while this element is quite huge but not being the subject. I am only guessing that this kind of reasoning could be applied to our case. For me it was clear I was only guessing because France is not under common law, any interpretation of jurisprudence is a guess. Back to Esby's photo, to me the copyrighted parts are De minimis as being only accessory to the picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification please -- the poster with the Mario brothers at the extreme right of the image is what is being objected to here? If so, would a cropped version that was missing the Mario brothers have addressed those concerns? Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but one could assume the other copyrighted elements that are present would need to be butchered out too: eg: it changes the center of the photograph to the mascott, so it should be deleted to follow the 'logic'. Rd232 is basically saying that De-Minimis cannot be present in a photograph from the instant you consider the photographer may have composed it... which is equivalent to pretend saying that de-minimis can not exist... Esby (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The poster is not the only concern, but cropping it out does help a lot, because the poster is shown close up and in good quality, whereas the other copyrighted elements are not. I think a reasonably generous de minimis standard can cover the remaining elements. I would call it "probably OK", bearing in mind that you can never be really sure until there's actually a court case about a photo. Rd232 (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of the photograph is the stand, not the panel before it. De Mimimis is not about how something could not be used to illustrate a copyrighted concept, but about the copyright laws limitation. A photograph can include copyrighted-works, the legal restrictions are that you are not allowed to crop on the copyrighted parts: Using the image and saying 'looks at the bottom part' to illustrate is equivalent to directly crop on that part, so it's not allowed and it has nothing to do with the photograph being De-Minimis or not. This is a wikipedia issue, not a Commons issue as the photograph have a subject that makes the photograph De-Minimis. Besides, there would be nothing illegal to have a photograph of a Stand featuring Mario in it... Esby (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete Commons:De minimis doesn't have an entry for France, but the general sense of DM is that the copyrighted work is incidental to the photograph. In this case, if all the copyrighted elements were removed from the photo it would be meaningless; the elements are essential to the meaning and clearly included deliberately in the composition in order to convey that meaning, as the filename shows. This is not de minimis. Rd232 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment De minimis in France is more complex than if it is used to illustrate X then it's not De minimis, the case on tour Montparnasse (C.A. Paris - 7 novembre 1980) is clear about that, it's not the size that matters. When shooting at Mang'Azur it's hard to avoid any copyrighted elements (which is exactly the spirit of the case I've cited). --PierreSelim (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
