Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Little Mermaid-tourists.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:The_Little_Mermaid-tourists.jpg

[edit]

Following this deletion request, I'm nominating the original picture. Having more content around it doesn't change the fact that the statue is the main subject, so de minimis doesn't apply. –Tryphon☂ 08:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but the statue really is not that many pixels across, especially compared to the picture width. so are you sure de minimis does not apply? Thue (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (image uploader, who reluctantly did agree with the other image deletions)[reply]
I'm pretty sure, yes. If you have a look at the example given in COM:DM, you'll see that if the [statue] forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the [statue], there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the [statue] was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the [statue] 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. Pixel counts are not a criteria here. –Tryphon☂ 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. The inclusion of the copyrighted work is not incidental. The file is used on 32 projects – in all of them to illustrate the statue rather than tourists, as far as I can tell. Basically, if one can use a photo to illustrate an article about a subject, the subject's inclusion in the photo isn't de minimis. The lack or limitation of freedom of panorama in some countries is unfortunate, but it's not something that we should try to circumvent through "clever" use of perceived loopholes. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It's very usefulness as a picture of the statue on multiple Wikipedias shows that the statue is the picture's subject. --Simonxag (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I believe that this can be kept. Maybe could be renamed "tourism in Denmark". The description could focus on the architect of the ugly building in the background. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a prime example of trying to circumvent lack of freedom of panorama through "clever" use of loopholes. It's obvious given the usage of the file that the purpose is to illustrate the copyrighted non-free statue. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can call it "Langelinien pavillon" by Nils and Eva Koppel, built 1954. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only if we crop it to change that to be the main subject. Again, as evidenced by how the image is used and described, the curret subject is a copyrighted non-free statue. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the description and I propose to rename this File:Langelinie.jpg; so  Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you also remove it from articles about the statue? Or at least address the issue? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete anytime you have a photo where everyone is looking at something, the eye is going to drawn to that item. As long as you have the statue in the foreground of an image with a bunch of tourists looking at it, it can't be de minimis. Pixellating the statue, while horrible, would solve the problem, though not necessarily giving us a photo anyone wants to use. Of course, that last fact means that the statue isn't de minimis. If you actually want to claim the Langelinien pavillon as the subject, crop it so that we get all those distracting tourists gawking at something that isn't the pavillon out of the picture.
    I could argue in the context of a book on architecture or psychology of tourism or photography that the statue is de minimis; if we use it in articles on the Little Mermaid, any hope of that that goes out the window.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm not sure about commons policy on this general issue, but as a non-profit organisation the Wikimedia foundation is free to use this image as much as we like, as Danish copyright very explicitly states that royalties only can be collected if the work is used commercially "Bestemmelsen i 1. pkt. finder ikke anvendelse, såfremt kunstværket er hovedmotivet og gengivelsen udnyttes erhvervsmæssigt. ". Frankly I don't see how that differs from the thousands of images we have under some fuzzy notion of fair use, we already have a situation where you cannot reuse images on commons indiscriminately, so why practice it here? Sertmann (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so not on commons, but can't we move the image to Wikipedia then? Sertmann (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. The statue was unveiled in 1913, so it should be just fine under US law (and life+50 in 2010), so en.Wiki will host it as a free image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Little_Mermaid-tourists.jpg&oldid=598324879"