Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg

The buildings shown are all copyrighted. The de minimis test requires that if the copyrighted works were removed that the average viewer would not notice the difference. That is obviously not the case here, as the only things in the image are the copyrighted buildings. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per COM:De minimis in its current interpretation (and not in the one "invented" by Jameslwoodward), and the previous request. --A.Savin 18:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, I suggest you read COM:De minimis more carefully. It is true that I have restated it in a simple to understand way, but consider:

"So, for example, if the [copyrighted work] forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the [copyrighted work], there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the [copyrighted work] was 'just in the background'."

" If the existence of the [copyrighted work] 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. "

"It may be relevant how the image is described or classified: it will be difficult to argue de minimis if the photograph is described as illustrating "an advertising poster" and is placed within the category Advertising posters."

"A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the [copyrighted work] were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the [copyrighted work] is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is "in the background".

The last of these is particularly relevant -- if you masked out all the buildings in this image, would the image be useful?

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated several times, there is COM:DM policy with the "examples" section where there is explicitly stated that Burj Khalifa is DM in a Dubai cityscape. And that is the long-term practice on Commons regarding the non-FoP deltion requests. If you wish to change the policies, you have to start a proposal and gain sufficient support; because you are, just like me, only a Commons user, and not the police or something. And regarding the sentence with the masked poster, consider the "may be": it is possible, but not mandatory. What they mean is, that if the poster is retouched and no one notices the difference, then the poster certainly is DM. But that's not the same as "If the poster is retouched and everyone notices the difference, it is certainly not DM". --A.Savin 14:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete There is no COM:FOP in UAE. How can the Burj Khalifa be DM? Its slap bang in the middle of the photo. And the other buildings are copyrighted too Gbawden (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Another one who wants to change the policy without community consensus. --A.Savin 15:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete As I've mentioned in the previous request, if the image is full of copyrighted objects, I don't see how DM can apply. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 12:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So if a city contains of 100 copyrighted buildings, that means that the 100 architects possess joint copyright over the city, I guess )) --A.Savin 15:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to interpret it this way, then yes. But what I meant was that lacking focus on a single copyrighted object doesn't immediately make the image a DM. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)}

  Missed the irony? --A.Savin 17:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: de minimis: the single buildings might be copyrighted, but the whole panorama is not. Ruthven (msg) 16:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]