Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giant Rubber Duck invades Pittsburgh (10023967385).jpg

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:Giant Rubber Duck invades Pittsburgh (10023967385).jpg

This file was initially tagged by AndreCarrotflower as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no FoP for art in the US A1Cafel (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep de minimis (Not the subject of this photo)--A1Cafel (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Arguments de minimis (or that the artwork is "not the subject of this photo") become markedly less tenable when the artwork is specifically mentioned in the filename. The fact that the painting in the lower left of the photo represents yet another copyright-protected derivative work compounds matters further. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Keep Main parts made by a US Navy soldier, so {{PD-USGov-Navy}} may apply. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • {{PD-USGov-Navy}} applies to content created by U.S. navy servicepeople as part of their official duties. There's no indication that's the case with this photo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @A1Cafel, AndreCarrotflower, and Liuxinyu970226: the main issue here is the applicability of de minimis. US de minimis is sharper: the de minimis wording is "trivial inclusion" of a copyrighted work, not the French wording "accessory". Is the rubber duck here "trivial" or not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
      • JWilz12345 - But the image itself isn't the entire sum total of what we've published here. The filename and file description are also important elements. And regardless of how prominent the duck is in the image itself, I don't see how, in good faith, we can include clear references to the duck in the filename and description and then turn around and claim it's a "trivial inclusion". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per COM:DM#An example, "So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster 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." The subject of this picture is clearly the giant rubber duck and that was the intent of the photograph. This would constitute a copyright violation. ƏXPLICIT 12:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)