Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa

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_Khalifa

[edit]

There is no FOP in the UAE, and thence these images can't be hosted on Commons.

russavia (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

First of all, thanks for reviewing some articles on wikimedia. To be honest, I have not understood yet the problem with some of my pictures and I haven't got any further explanation on your words (I could see something on the "FOP" link you left)

I guess you mean that there are some policies related to the buildings on UAE that my images don't follow.

I can say that I took some pictures in there and I have't asked anyone on the UAE if he/she mind about using images of his country.

I didn't know I was breaking some rules (I just wanted to contribute with some of my pictures) but in that case, I hardly believe that all of the pictures of the UAE shown on Commons are following that directives

So, if it is possible, I just want to know what's the difference between my pictures and "almost every other" picture of UAE shown on wikicommons

Thanks for your help,

--KeDaO (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @KeDaO: hello and thanks for your contributions. The answer to your question is COM:De minimis. If no single or prominent building is the chief subject of an image (e.g. a general skyline or cityscape view), it is thus acceptable as "de minimis".
For the FOP, unfortunately the UAE copyright law does not allow free, unrestricted commercial exploitations of images of modern buildings (Burj Khalifa and Burj al Arab included), without authorization from the copyright holder of the said architectural works. Usually the copyright holders are the architects or architectural firms who created/designed the appearances of the buildings (e.g. Adrian Smith for the Burj Khalifa and Tony Wright for the Burj al Arab). Per COM:FOP UAE, which is supported by the current copyright law of UAE, there is no sufficient and Commons-acceptable FOP from UAE. A very restricted provision only states that free uses of images of architecture are only allowed in broadcasting programmes (no mention of free uses of photographs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:37, 15 February 2012 (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 Khalifa 2

[edit]

No FOP in the UAE

russavia (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:36, 17 July 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 Khalifa 3

[edit]

No COM:FOP in the UAE.

russavia (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments to the Deletion request of Burj Khalifa March 2013.jpg.
I took the above picture and published it on Commons not being aware of the COM:FOP concept. To get a better understanding what this, and how it is applied in UAE I tried to follow the Commons discussion referred to in the deletion request message. I only to ended up in an endless discussion that seem to conclude that it is not clear that it is allowed to publish picture of architectural work (e.g. buildings) in UAE and consequently these picture should be removed since it could be a violation to the law. The problem I have is why then is not all pictures of buildings in UAE removed from Commons, why only some? Why should the picture I took be deleted while other pictures of the same building are still on Commons since many years and there is no request to remove them? In most countries (including UAE) it is clearly indicated by signs at the place or building when photography is not allowed, and consequently they cannot be published, These signs do exists is shopping malls, airports, harbors, religious places, etc but no such signs does exist for Burj Khalifa. I understand the clear distinction between taking a picture and publish the same, but wouldn't the two go hand in hand for public places? Not to mention the thousands of pictures on Internet already published of the Burj Khalifa.
I simply like to understand what pictures I take that I can publish and which I cannot, so that I do not make the same mistake again. Can someone clarify?/Losttraveller (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, please understand the difference between a copyright problem (which this is) and a prohibition against taking pictures for some reason -- military installations, art inside museums, etc. Our concern is copyright. We are not concerned with other restrictions -- while the photographer may get in trouble for taking a picture in violation of the posted signs, that is not a Commons problem. The problem here is that the architect of Burj Khalifa owns the copyright. While it is perfectly legal to take a picture for your own use, such a picture may not be used in ways which would infringe on the copyright, including use on Commons. There is no real relationship between the two types of restrictions.
Second, some pictures of buildings are OK -- usually because the building is old enough so that the copyright has expired, but in some cases because the architect has given a license.
Third, please understand that Commons is not perfect. We have more than 18 million images here. It would not surprise me if 1% of those -- 180,000 -- were problems for one reason or another. So, the fact that there may be other images that should also be deleted is a problem, but it does not affect the question of whether these images should be deleted. If you see other images that are similar, please nominate them for deletion by clicking on the link in the left column of the image page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, please believe me that I do understand the differences in copyrights that you describe above, likewise do I understand the rest you explain. Although I still do not have the answer to my question: when can I publish a picture of a building in UAE? Is there any way for me to know which buildings in UAE that have copyrights or when that copyright has expired? There is appr 45 pictures of Burj Khalifa in Commons, four of them has now been tagged for removal. Why only these four and not all 45? Logically if these four violates the rules, so must all 45, or...?
Please understand that I have never objected to have the pictures deleted, I just like to understand when a picture violates the rules and when not../Losttraveller (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I do not know, why the other photos in this category were not presented for deletion, but most of them (and maybe all) should be deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 30 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 Khalifa 4

[edit]

No FOP in the UAE

russavia (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:28, 3 October 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 Khalifa 5

[edit]

No FOP in the UAE

russavia (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 27 December 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 Khalifa 6

[edit]

No COM:FOP in the UAE for buildings.

russavia (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

, Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (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 Khalifa 7

[edit]

Copyrighted building exteriors and interiors. No Freedom of Panorama in UAE.

Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Khalifa and Dubai Metro perfect timing.JPG and Tallest tower vs. the palm trees (5373615733).jpg could be de minimis. I'm not a judge, where is the border between permissibility and copyright violation? --Ras67 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted four, kept two per DM. --Krd 16:18, 16 January 2016 (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 Khalifa 8

[edit]

Copyrighted building in UAE which has no freedom of panorama.

Themightyquill (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination --Krd 11:07, 23 January 2016 (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 Khalifa 9

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates! None of this buildings are free to photograph!

Ras67 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:36, 23 July 2016 (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 Khalifa 10

[edit]

Building under copyright, no Freedom of Panorama.

Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped File:Roger burj dubai promo (web).JPG to comply with the rules. ~★ nmaia d 14:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it should be cropped more and the name should be changed. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Sealle (talk) 13:15, 10 February 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 Khalifa 11

[edit]

The same as usual: no COM:FOP.

HyperGaruda (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 24 October 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 Khalifa 12

[edit]

Can we have some clarification as to why these illustrations of a copyrighted building are okay for commons? I don't know how the rules apply here. The copyrighted architecture of the buildings is clearly depicted, but maybe there's some exception I don't understand.

Themightyquill (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete: as a derivative of a copyrighted deisgn, it still constitutes copyright violation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: Per previous argument. I only wonder what does it mean copyrighted architecture of the buildings is clearly depicted (especially this clearly as well as copyrighted architecture)? How is threshold of originality actually measured here (for music piece of arts there are some rules, e.g. number of same tones or something, although even here it is relative and some rules say it is e.g. 70% some 80%)? Is it here about pixels being mostly on the same place as in original building blueprints or something else, and again – how is this measured? If one (re)moves one pixel how is exactly new piece of art considered same as or derivative of the original one? --Obsuser (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info On this deletion request the SVG from copyrighted photos was not seen as copyright violation. --Ras67 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: that discussion involved two copyrights: the copyright on the egg itself and the copyright on a photo (derivative) of said egg. Since the egg's author died in 1920 (>70 years), those copyright restrictions have expired. If the uploader of File:Third imperial Fabergé egg.svg based the file on the egg itself, there is no copyright infringement. If the uploader based the file on a copyrighted photograph, that would indeed be copyvio. However, the uploader argues that they did not use any copyrighted picture in particular. In the case of the Burj Khalifa diagrams, the building's author--Adrian Smith--is still alive, which means that not even the original is in the public domain. Any derivative, even derivatives of derivatives, will have to deal with copyright restrictions until 70 years afther Smith's death. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  'Keep You can't be serious! I know photos are prohibited, but a drawing? Besides, it's not even a static drawing; it's a series of simplified floor plans translated, scaled and rotated together to give the impression of a 3D object. '⎆ 09:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Cmglee: I'm very much open to arguments in favour of keeping since these images are in use, but I'm not sure I understand your points. Why would photographs be prohibited, but not a drawing? If a 2D image of a 3D object is copyrighted, why wouldn't an image that gives a 3D impression of a 3D object be prohibited? Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Themightyquill. To me, it seems obvious that a photograph is the result of an opto-electronic process: light from the building is captured by the camera and converted via electronics and computing to become an image. Sure there is artistic judgement involved, but the information in the photo is derived directly from the environment.
For my drawing, I composed hundreds of shapes which to my eye resemble the floor plans, then arranged them to make a representation of the building. (I admit that tracing a photo, for example, is a grey area, but this is not in my case.)
Look carefully at my illustration: Is the real building just a collection of planes floating in space? Do these "floors" have colours like mine?
I think that considering a non-grey-area drawing as a violation of FOP is a dangerous slippery slope; where does one draw the line? For example, if I claim that this: /\ is a drawing of Burj Khalifa, does that violate FOP?
Cheers, '⎆ 21:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, /\ is not a violation of copyright (no FoP to speak of here) but wouldn't a super accurate photo-realistic illustration of the building be infringement, even if it's not photograph based? Derivative work doesn't need to be derived directly from the environment. Your illustrations are a floor-by-floor recreation of the buildings. They are far more detailed than, say, me sketching the building on a napkin with pencil. There may be gray area about some illustrations, but I don't see your illustrations as gray area. I like them a lot, they are clearly useful, and if there's a way we can keep them, I'm all for it but we need a clear rationale. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can be uploaded locally to Wikipedias as fair use in order to represent a building structure (for those Wikipedias that disabled local uploading entirely, I don't know). --Obsuser (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Themightyquill and Obsuser. Can someone tell me how the image can be modified to be acceptable? For example, is it OK if the dimetric view of the tower on the left was removed? Also, can the article have a prominent comment so that editors needn't spend days of work just to see their effort deleted? Cheers, '⎆ 23:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Lastly, can someone update Commons:Freedom_of_panorama to make it clear that drawings are treated similarly to photographs? '⎆ 23:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted per above: this is clearly a reproduction of the architectural work. Guanaco (talk) 15:27, 9 December 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 Khalifa 13

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination --Ruthven (msg) 12:53, 5 January 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 Khalifa 14

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the UAE

Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:45, 23 January 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 Khalifa 15

[edit]

no FoP in the UAE

Saqib (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - per nomination - Jcb (talk) 14:51, 3 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 Khalifa 16

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how and why you can on the same day upload a number of pictures of the skyline of Dubai, including also the Burj Khalifa, and request deletion for similar uploads – what is your endgame? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I believe there is no copyright to these public images in the UAE .Category:Burj Khalifa. Is it possible to give us one reason to delete these images which are public photos and there is nothing wrong with posting them here!?.Usamasaad 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no endgame, it seems to be consensus that skyline photo of a specific subject are free due to de minimis. A full frame depiction of a building in UAE can not be hosted on Commons due to the lack of panorama of freedom. Every image must be able to use commercially and this is here not the case. --Ras67 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - per nomination. Kept only File:Fog on Burj Khalifah.Dubai. - panoramio.jpg and File:برج خليفة في دبي2.jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 18:43, 23 February 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 Khalifa 17

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. --Majora (talk) 20:54, 19 July 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 Khalifa 18

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Burj Khalifa was designed by Adrian Smith.

Ras67 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. It is not de minimis if what is being photographed is the main subject of the photograph. The entry way would still be part of the copyright and we cannot keep any of these. --Majora (talk) 20:58, 19 July 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 Khalifa 19

[edit]

No FOP in UAE

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

Some files doesn't necessarily depict Burj Khalifa as the main subject but FOP still applies on other skyscrapers. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Too little carefulness in the files' selection. Many of them were already nominated in a deletion request and were kept. One file has now two deletion requests! A skyline should be free, but only the broad ones.
 Keep for all old nominated and kept files (no new reasons were given).
 Keep for broad skyline photos (almost the whole city).
 Delete What is with CollageDubai.jpg? Was the DR properly closed? IMHO also the new one is not correct, a (cropped out) single part image of the Burj Al Arab and of two other buildings can't be assessed as de minimis!
 Delete for photos of the Burj with fountains etc. and all others. --Ras67 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: As per Themightyquill, there are various copyrighted buildings in the picture and having all of them as DM doesn't eliminate the copyvio infringement. If you're talking in the POV that Burj Khalifa is the main DR reason, I've mentioned above that "Some files doesn't necessarily depict Burj Khalifa as the main subject but FOP still applies on other skyscrapers." 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that and agree with you, but where is the border? Strictly speaking we have to delete all with copyrighted objects in the UAE. This can not be it. Warm regards --Ras67 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: I would say that only having a single small enough copyrighted building as DM would be ok. For example, File:Burj Khalifa @ Yellow Boats Tour @ Dubai (15876740342).jpg might probably the threshold of DM as the design of the building is "too small" in the picture to be seen. I wonder why File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg was kept with the reason of "Panoramic view of the city" per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa (as File:Burj Khalifa 005.JPG in the DR) when FOP applies to all buildings and not BK only. However, this is only my opinion and this is the problem about DM, there is no benchmark. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, it's a difficult matter with blurred borders, the closing admin has to decide it. --Ras67 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble accepting that the burj khalifa is really de minimis in an image titled "Burj Khalifa" and in the category Category:Burj Khalifa. If it's an image of the skyline of Dubai, it should be renamed as such and it should not be in this category. It should not be used to illustrate articles on the Burj Khalifa. De Minimis is an exception, not a loophole. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, but some are  kept. I commented some files. Taivo (talk) 20:47, 5 October 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 Khalifa 20

[edit]

Derived work from copyrighted photos/buildings/designs what we cannot host here! We need the permission of the actual creators for a free licencing of their work.

Ras67 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy delete as derivative work copyvios. No permissions or OTRS authorizations from model creators, images uploaded by a problematic user (who has uploaded dozens of DW/no FOP violations, as seen in their talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:59, 11 December 2021 (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 Khalifa 21

[edit]

To the 21st one and eternal further, no freedom of panorama in UAE! Why we are the sole ones who protect Adrian Smith's rights? It seems to me, that the rest of the world is not interested in this case. IMHO the skylines are copyrighted too.

@JWilz12345: If so, we can change this file name and keep this file. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: And we can also undelete deleted file and rename deleted file. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The illuminated background is an essential part of the photos and not a casual element. The whole background consists of copyrighted skyscrapers. --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67:  Comment I think main object in this image is the car. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I read this page carefully. In this page, I found this sentence. "Cityscape, skyline, or vista photos may be acceptable if no single building is the primary subject." It means that both cityscape photos and skyline photos are allowed. And this page contains outdated content. For example, Atomium in Belgium is allowed now because Belgium has freedom of panorama now, but this page explains that Atomium is not allowed. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: slashed my vdel input. While the page is outdated for Atomium, it is still relevant for Burj Khalifa and Burj al Arab, as long as there is no acceptable FOP from UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ras67 (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ras67:  Keep Already in past discussions, it has been concluded that some images were kept covered by DM. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel:  Comment In my opinion, some of other files you didn't marked maybe to be kept. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: You may also mark those you think can be kept. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections (except those given keep reasons by A1Cafel or Ox1997cow).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel and Jeff G.: I marked whether delete or keep. I will respectfully accept any objection. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the skylines are not {{Deminimis}}. Every building in these images is copyrighted, it's not in the "sense" of the law to "stack" copyrighted objects and so make them free. The "deminimised" objects have to be "nonessential" and "casual" elements, what is not the case in the skyline photographs. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67:  Comment Already in past discussion, it has been concluded that the skylines are DM. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Lack of freedom of panorama does not mean that we cannot create categories of copyrighted buildings or sculptures. So, why does categories of copyrighted games exist? (Such as Category:StarCraft, Category:Overwatch, Category:Call of Duty, etc...) Ox1997cow (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the skyline photo incidentally contains copyrighted buildings, these photos are allowed under de minimis. Categories of buildings or sculptures in countries without freedom of panorama exist for this kind of situation. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: see Category:Sólfar (a copyrighted sculpture in Iceland, with all files deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sólfar). See also Category:SM City San Pedro. For buildings, they can go under Category:Buildings in Dubai or Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai. This category has been abused IMO, and it seems new uploaders ignore warnings on top. Also if the category needs to be nuked, this should be locked until the year the building falls PD or UAE changes their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: That's an extreme case. When uploading to the category of copyrighted things, there is no problem if we follow the warning and upload. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: By the way, why are you taking the extreme case and giving it as an example? In the previous deletion discussion, you used that only examples of misuse of NoFoP templates were taken as examples, and you claimed that all NoFoP templates should be changed with something like {{NoFoP-Japan}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: the simple answer is that the {{NoUploads}} are, in my opinion, ineffective. I doubt most uploaders will understand what the template means in relation to copyrighted FOP-reliant works: works like buildings, sculptures, statues, monuments, memorials, and public murals/frescoes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: My opinion is different. The reason is that many users don't know that freedom of panorama varies by country. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974:  Oppose Some images were kept due to DM before. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Burj Khalifa should be a trivial landmark (i.e. should not be at the centre of an image) per COM:DM, but it is too prominent in most of the listed images. Apologies for !voting all listed images to delete without seeing them individually. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: I and A1Cafel have already marked "deleted" and "kept" on images that are likely to be deleted and images that are likely to be kept. Also, already in the previous deletion discussion, it was concluded that the skyline image is DM as the single buildings might be copyrighted, but the whole panorama is not. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some skyline images are under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Burj Khalifa-related.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To end all this mess because of limited exception (broadcasting programs only) in UAE copyright law, are there any attempts by Wikipedians in UAE and Arab Wikipedians to have FOP introduced in the desert kingdom? At the very least, FOP for architecture only (similar to US and Russian exceptions)? @A1Cafel, Ox1997cow, Ras67, Botev, Jeff G., and Soumya-8974: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: I'm sorry, but I've never heard of such a thing. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Why we are the sole ones who protect Adrian Smith's rights" note that I do not care about Adrian Smith's right, I do not care about UAE law. If I nominate things for deletion I do it to protect users of Commons. This law is unjust, though if for some reason I would have influence on UAE I would start from far worse laws being present there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for this nomination: keep everything, nominate actually problematic ones for a proper review Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as indiscriminate. Cut out any skyline pictures, they are clearly de minimis. Individually nominate the rest. We aren’t here to “right great wrongs” by protecting the copyright of an architect who has low enough ethical standards to work in a country where being gay is illegal. Dronebogus (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: followed remarks of @Ox1997cow and A1Cafel: and many thanks for your efforts. In some case followed arguments of other users. General skylines kept according consensus. Thanks all for your efforts. --Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2022 (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 Khalifa 22

[edit]

The architecture is copyrighted e.g. by Adrian Smith, see COM:TOYS!

Ras67 (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ras67:  Delete They are clearly {{Copyvio}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete derivative work copyright violation: appears to be toys or small-scale models. May also fulfill User:Elcobbola/Models. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per COM:TOYS--A1Cafel (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, per nomination and discussion. Elly (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2021 (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 Khalifa 23

[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates, per COM:FOP UAE. The Burj Khalifa is still copyrighted. Also derivatives (such as lego models) are copyrighted. Reason: the building was completed in 2008.

This image is deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Khalifa (Pexels-1537493).jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elly (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree not to delete File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg, because the tower is blackened and details cannot be seen. Elly (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all but File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg per Elly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all except File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg per Elly SHB2000 (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Surely most/all those other buildings are subject to copyright as well. Either all buildings in this image (including Burj Khalifa) de minimis or all are subject to copyright restrictions, no? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Already the decision has been made that the single buildings might be copyrighted but the whole panorama is not. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: That was my understanding as well - so I didn't see the need to black out the tower in that image. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Dubai including the Burj Khalifa would be useful? -- 06:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Not bad. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And we can make a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Seoul including Lotte World Tower. (There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, too.) Ox1997cow (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow and Themightyquill: impractical, and can lead to abuse. The best approach is that all skyline inages must be categorized under Category:Skylines in Dubai and similar categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I don't think it's impractical, but I suspect you're right about leading to abuse. Just a thought - I'm not determined. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 and Themightyquill: However, existing building name categories(For example, Category:Burj Khalifa, Category:Lotte World Tower, etc.) should be kept. It is intended to be used in a photo of the skyline that contains the building. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked {{vk}} on images that can obviously applied de minimis. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: I have signed your markings for you. Please sign such markings yourself in the future.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Oh, that's my mistake. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Has anyone contacted Adrian Smith to request permission? If so, then I'm assuming he said no? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I've not misheard, Adrian Smith is currently in a jail in Saudi Arabia. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974 and Ixfd64: for a more eternal or longterm approach, has anyone including Arab Wikipedians and Wikipedians based in UAE have taken steps to introduce FOP there, at least "for buildings only" (yellow countries)? I expect dozens of more copyvio images to be uploaded here, including: this one. I'm not sure if people aren't aware of no FOP there or just intentionally "testing our no-FOP policy on UAE". I would also want to suggest filtering out exactly the words "Burj Khalifa" so that new users will no longer be able to upload images either containing the said words in their file names or in their file descriptions, at least temporarily (while UAE has no FOP for photos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Excessive file name restrictions are bad. Suppose someone uploaded a file name of the Dubai Skyline with Burj Khalifa as "Remote view of Burj Khalifa". Skyline photos with Burj Khalifa are allowed even if there is no freedom of panorama in UAE, as last deletion discussion concluded that they were OK. If you ban the use of "Burj Khalifa" in file names, we won't be able to upload acceptable skyline or cityscape photos. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: And many people do not know freedom of panorama. I also mistakenly thought that the copyright of a building or sculpture photo belonged to the person who took it, until I saw numerous photos of the building or sculpture deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: no, de minimis photos can still be uploaded, thru titles like "Dubai skyline 20211103.JPG", "Skyline of Dubai, UAE as seen from the Marina in 2019.jpg." If images bearing such file names continue to be uploaded, the location filled with millions of deleted files from late-2006 may become "crowded" in the very distant future. Besides files do not get "deleted" in real life, but rather all "deleted" files are still there, just hidden from non-admins (as per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on his reply here). See also w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Image undeletion on the mechanism of files deleted on Wikipedia (which also applies to all Wiki sites). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: You're thinking too extreme. A lot of users will use the copyrighted building name in the file name, but can we ban the copyrighted building name in the file name? And did you think about typos? (For example, "Bur Kalifa", "Buri Khaljfa", etc.) Ox1997cow (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I've known you're an extreme claimant since you had the deletion discussion related NoFoP templates. Even in that discussion, you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and insisted that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace. Even if use of NoFoP templates is changed to be used in category namespace, there is no guarantee that it will not be misused. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: I look on longterm solutions and not "band-aid" solutions. Thus it is best to filter out such names. Actually Commons has already did a version of what you call very extreme approach: indefinite protection of file names that is comonly misused. Example: File:Burj Khalifa.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That approach of locking the file name prompted me to suggest such. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Keep that in mind. Such long-term solutions can hurt many users. Even though it is forbidden to use only "Burj Khalifa" in a file name, I know that using a file name containing "Burj Khalifa" is difficult to ban. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: and also take note of COM:CARES. The copyright holders include the architects and artists of national monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: I couldn't find anything about Adrian Smith being incarcerated. His article on the English Wikipedia doesn't say anything either. Could you provide a source? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you! I have probably misheard a piece of news related to the still-unfinished Jeddah Tower, also designed by Adrian Smith. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Of course I know the copyright holders include the architects and artists of national monuments. Anyway, even though I agree to ban file name containing only "Burj Khalifa", I cannot accept your extreme argument of banning file names containing "Burj Khalifa". Ox1997cow (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, how about using the edit filter to just warn the user if they try to upload a picture containing the name? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64: It's not bad. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Khalifa Interpretation Centre.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep skyline images. De minimis use of the Burj Khalifa, there’s a precedent for this. The freedom of panorama page of English Wikipedia literally shows a skyline in a non-FOP country. I struggle to see why the images that just show the base aren’t de minimis but that’s not my expertise. The blacked-out version is artistically interesting but a ridiculous solution to a nonexistent problem (buildings are not more copyrighted because they’re famous and impossible not to notice in a generic panorama!) Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept General DR like this one is clearly not helpful. Yann (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Burj_Khalifa&oldid=843360856"