Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Al Arab

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Extended content
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.

Files in Category:Burj Al Arab 1

[edit]

No COM:FOP in the UAE.

russavia (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 25 September 2013 (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.

Files in Category:Burj Al Arab 2

[edit]

These images include architectural works in the UAE, where there is no freedom of panorama.

 Keep I think de minimis applies in this case. It's a photo of security at the hotel, but neither the hotel or even the hotel security checkpoint architecture are prominent. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion is here. I think, however, a mistake was made in that discussion. At very least, the image should be cropped to remove the hotel. That said, I dont' see why the security checkpoint would not also be subject to copyright. It's clearly a unique piece of architecture. The fact that it's not a famous hotel doesn't make it less copyrightable. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. The wikipedia article at en:Madinat Jumeirah doesn't give a date for its construction. Is it old enough to be in the public domain somehow? Just because it's not the Burj Al Arab doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do buildings in Madinat Jumeirah have a copyright? I don't see there anything over the en:Threshold of originality. Poco2 16:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may well qualify as Freedom of Panorama, since it's a model in Germany. Please see discussion below before taking action. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I'm here I'm going to make some specific comments on the individual images:
  • File:Burj Al Arab from a beach in Dubai.jpg – I stand by my position in the original DR and the eventual decision. It's a photograph of the beach and objects on it, not of the Burj Al Arab which in incidentally in the background. In fact, my impression is that I just pointed the camera in a random direction and fired but I liked the result so I uploaded it to Commons. The Burj Al Arab could be made invisible and you'd still have a useful image, which is proof enough of de minimis in my view.
Would you consider a) cropping to just the left hand side of the photo? b) renaming it and moving it to a different category? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds reasonable to me, but the file should be renamed and moved to a different category. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are definitely good shots of the marina and coast line, but I think the buildings on the right are more than questionable. Luckily, they could easily be cropped out and good images of the coastline and marina would remain. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. The Burj Al Arab is less prominent, but so is the marina. The buildings on the right are, as a result, more prominent. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume good faith in your comments, despite the fact that I only added a car category this week. As I mentioned above, however, there is little architecture visible, so I see no reason to delete it. -Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Entrance to the Burj Al Arab.jpg – This is a more complicated one but I stand-by my comments in the recent DR and the eventual result. The Burj Al Arab is easily de minimis when one applies the Lovre standard, which is based on actual case law and is endorsed by policy. I accept that one can reasonably argue that this standard is too lenient though policy really needs to be changed, or at least clarified, if that is going to fly in my view. There is no known case law in the UAE on where to draw the line with de minimis so using the French standard as a guide seems reasonable. The security checkpoint (Welcome Centre), along with the entrance generally, was the intended subject and I accept this is not de minimis. However, I don't believe it meets the threshold of originality to attract copyright protection. Again, this is a matter of opinion, especially as there's no UAE case law to go on, though past precedent does hold that photos of small utilitarian buildings of this nature are generally kept. CT Cooper · talk 17:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble accepting dm here. The image is called "View on the hotel of Burj Al Arab". The image description is "View on the hotel of Burj Al Arab" and it's only in one category, Category:Burj Al Arab. If the hotel is not the focus of the photo, what exactly is it a picture of? If it's not a photo of the hotel, it's likely out of scope. Themightyquill (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also prefere de minimis, similar to the Eifeltower at night case (check de:Eiffelturm#Beleuchtung_und_Lichtkunst. And the interiors are not copyrighted cause of TOO or design protection.--~~

Files in Category:Burj Al Arab 3

[edit]

Burj Al Arab is a copyrighted building in a country without Freedom of Panorama. If you'd like to claim that one of these images is simply a photo of the city's general skyline and that Burj Al Arab is therefore de minimis, the photo should probably not be named "Burj Al Arab" or be in Category:Burj Al Arab (both of which suggest it's the focus of the image).

[Sorry for the double nomination here. I didn't realize these were already under discussion. I've removed duplicated nominations.]

Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should ask Themightyquill, the mightyest admin in Commons to delete this chapter. (Including my guts to joke around with an admin... :-) --E4024 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a problem with the image title or image description then they should be re-named, not deleted. And yet again we have an image of a model in Germany (and is clearly tagged as such) being nominated for deletion on grounds of "No FOP in the UAE". Is it too much to ask for people to bother checking the contents of the files and their copyright information before nominating? This "It has the Burj Al Arab in the title and/or the description - DELETE!" approach is not helpful at all, not to mention a slap in the face for those who contribute content to Commons. I'm not impressed at all. CT Cooper · talk 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I agree, if it's just a problem with an image title or description, they should be renamed (and moved out of this category) not deleted. That was my point. Which cases that applies to should be decided here.
It's no more a slap in the face than the enormous number of people who think they are being helpful by uploading images of the building (despite the fact that the category has a template clearly indicating that it's copyrighted) slapping those to try to manage commons files. I'm sorry for that mistake (as well) but please don't take it personally. ::That said, out of curiosity - what exactly are the legalities of minimundus created a model of a copyrighted building. If I create a sculpture of Mickey Mouse and mount it permanently in Germany, can I take a picture of it and upload it to commons? Or does minimundus request permission to create its models? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of my uploads are compliant with policy as I understood at the time of upload (which was over six years ago) and as of right now. Photographs that I took in the UAE which depicted copyright architectural work in which COM:DM and other exceptions didn't apply were not uploaded, though this is often a judgement call in which two or more reasonable people can disagree on. If I knew what I knew now back then and still decided to go ahead and upload them, I would have probably titled some of them and described them differently and maybe created a "Burj Al Arab (incidental)" or similar category which I recall seeing done with other things elsewhere. However, almost all of my uploads in these two nominations have been subject to previous DRs, one of which was only three months ago (see my earlier comments). I think anyone in my position would have been annoyed to see their upload just casually re-nominated for deletion (twice) only a short time after a lengthy DR which ended in keep. However, I appreciate your apology.
I understand that people can get frustrated when they clean out a category of copyright violating images only for them to be filled-up again shortly afterwards, having been in that position myself multiple times while I was active here. Putting aside that much of the blame for this should go to systemic issues with Commons, many contributors try to do the right thing and it is not fair on them to just declare open season on all images in a category, especially as anyone can add or remove an image from a category. At the very minimum, people nominating images for deletion should be checking that the uploads are not already subject to a DR, haven't been subject to one recently and the contents of the images justify the nominated reasons for deletion. I accept that there are some situations when an image can/should be re-nominated for deletion but there ought to be some kind of explanation on why the nominator thinks the original decision should be put aside, especially if it was made recently, and mass DRs are not well suited for such images.
On the model of the Burj Al Arab, well one thing is very clear – "No FoP in the UAE" is not goods grounds on its own to delete it as it's not in the UAE, it's in Germany. Cross-border copyright is very complicated and far from settled, and freedom of panorama is no exception, but current practice is to use the most lenient standard. Given that Germany has freedom of panorama for both architecture and sculptures, presuming it's on permanent display and was photographed from a public place (the rules for this under German law are quite complicated), then it should be okay. CT Cooper · talk 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, CT Cooper, and for your contributions to commons. I didn't realize until after my mistake that Visual File Change does subtly notify users that an image is already under discussion. I won't make the same mistake again. If there are filename changes you think might apply, just let me know and I'd be happy to rename them. It might be worth moving the minimundus image something like Category:Models of the Burj Al Arab or Category:Burj Al Arab (Minimundus Bodensee‎) to separate it from the other images. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: the files that were dm, deleted the others. NB: A cityscape/skyline is by definition dm. Ruthven (msg) 09:23, 7 August 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.

Files in Category:Burj Al Arab 4

[edit]

No FoP in the UAE

Saqib (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: I had no idea if these were previously AfD'ed and kept. I withdraw my nom. Apologies. --Saqib (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I believe some of them should be deleted such as File:Burj al Arab - Mina a'salam - panoramio.jpg, File:Dubai - United Arab Emirates - panoramio (14).jpg, File:Dubai - United Arab Emirates - panoramio (14).jpg, File:Gfhec 2006 - panoramio.jpg, File:Hollow concrete chamfered cubes texture (523157633).jpg, File:Umm Suqeim 3 - Dubai - United Arab Emirates - panoramio (3).jpg, File:Umm Suqeim beach, Jumeira 3 - Dubai - United Arab Emirates - panoramio.jpg. These files were never nom for deletion before. --Saqib (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Can you then reduce the above list to the files you mentioned, and remove the RfD tag from the other ones, so we can let the RfD run? --A.Savin 14:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Saqib (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  Delete all then. --A.Savin 14:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Can you remove the RfD tag from the kept files? --A.Savin 16:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2018 (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.

Files in Category:Burj Al Arab 5

[edit]

No FOP in UAE

大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some files doesn't necessarily depict Burj Al Arab as the main subject but FOP still applies on other skyscrapers. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On File:Dubai Skyline on 10 January 2008.jpg: this was included in the Section 2 of this DR req, yet it was kept because of DM. Based on my observation of the picture this qualifies DM since it doesn't mainly depict the copyrighted works (or assumed to be copyrighted works), and are considered accessory to this picture (since a good picture of Dubai's skyline cannot be achieved without DM inclusion of such structures as Burj Khalifa or Burj al-Arab). Cropping might constitute a breach of DM, yet I would want to let other, more experienced contributors or admins to decide on this matter. (IMO, I think it needs to be pulled out of Category:Burj Al Arab, and add De Minimis Tag to let others remind that this mustn't be cropped).JWilz12345 (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept per dm except 1 (and consistency with previous closures). — Racconish 💬 13:38, 9 December 2019 (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.

Files in Category:Burj Al Arab 6

[edit]

Elegant interior architecture/designs. No freedom of panorama in UAE, and COM:OTRS permission from architect Tom Wright and involved interior designers is required. Unless, have FOP introduced in the country.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Burj Al Arab 7

[edit]

Same as above nominations: no FOP in UAE and violation of architect Tom Wright's copyright in using CC/PD licensing. Also, while de minimis may be used as a defense, the building is an essential element in each of these images, and cropping will render all of them useless.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:The Burj Al Arab.jpg as I have cropped and remove the tower. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel: by cropping it I doubt it is usable as it became redundant to existing imags at Category:Dubai. Its COM:EDUSE seems to have been diminished after removal of the building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the cropped File:The Burj Al Arab.jpg again. I'm convinced it must be deleted now as out of COM:SCOPE. A dull street angle (not a true street scene) in which the only interesting object is a banner or ad in the distance, which may violate COM:DW. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Al Arab.jpg is borderline post crop but not really in scope. --Geni (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Burj_Al_Arab&oldid=815017062"