Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Charging Bull

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.

Files in Category:Charging Bull 1

[edit]

The sculpture is still covered by copyright, and there is no FOP in the US for artworks.

russavia (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Deleted, speedy would have been more appropriate than a DR.--KTo288 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 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:Charging Bull 2

[edit]

No FOP in the US for sculptures

russavia (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:23, 27 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:Charging Bull 3

[edit]

No FOP in the US for statues.

russavia (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:25, 27 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:Charging Bull 4

[edit]

US FOP does not cover works of art or replicas of such work

Elisfkc (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 1 April 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:Charging Bull 5

[edit]

No FOP in the US for artwork/sculptures

Elisfkc (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg and File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg since they do not violate COM:FOP US, due to de minimis usage. The Cunard Building and 26 Broadway, which are depicted in these images, were completed before December 1990 and as such is exempt: for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. The bull is such a minor portion of these images that it doesn't infringe on the copyright of the original artist, but it is nearly impossible to take images of the specified vantage points without also including the bull in a de minimis capacity.
@Epicgenius: In File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, it seems to me like the Bull is the focus of the image. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, it does seem that the area the Bull is in is the focus, rather than the actual Bull, but the title seems to suggest otherwise. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc: For File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, which was taken by me, the Cunard Building was intended to be the focus, rather than the Bull. I was trying to get a picture of the entire building (see File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 77.jpg), but the street is too narrow so I had to take two images: 77 and 78. However, there is no way to get a direct shot of the lowest few stories, i.e. this view, because the Bull is in the way. I can theoretically take that image from beside the Bull, but I'd have a bunch of angry tourists. So i took 78 instead, with what I hoped was de minimis usage.
For File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, I can't speak for Tdorante10, but I think the key part is that he was trying to take a picture of that particular vantage point, but the main features are 26 Broadway and the Bull. I would personally interpret it as an image of 26 Broadway, with the Bull as a de minimis incidental. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I understand now for File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg. I'd support a de minimis usage for that. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as de minimis. It is because the bull is so small that it is obviously not the main subject of the first two photos. For the remaining one, there are many people surrounded the bull and we can't identify the bull clearly. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, but some are  kept. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2020 (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:Charging Bull 6

[edit]

No FoP in USA. Some of the images have a "de minimis" template. and some have been kept before. However none is de minimis. In the case of kept images there was never given a rationale in the keep decision of the deciding admin (or added next to the entry), why a specific image could fall under de minimis. The categorization "charging bull" alone tells the none is de minimis. Not in the DR: an image of the covered charging bull.

C.Suthorn (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's claim "The categorization "charging bull" alone tells the none is de minimis." is untrue. Some of these files have categories that describe even minor things in the image. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg also contains Category:1 Broadway, which is only visible as a sliver, and Category:Exterior of the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House, which is partially visible in the background (unlike sculptures, buildings in the USA do have FOP). I find it very hard to believe that Charging Bull is not de minimis in that picture, given that it's a very tiny portion of the picture itself; there are so many people in front of the sculpture that it actually is de minimis. There are other images where the Charging Bull is clearly not the focus of the image. File:美國紐約68.jpg is a view up Broadway where the sculpture is mostly hidden behind flagpoles. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 07.jpg, the focus of the image is clearly the cement truck, and the bull is an incidental object in the background. File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull (cropped).jpg has been cropped significantly so that the clear focus of the image is 26 Broadway; however, its source file, File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, is eligible for deletion. One of the strangest files listed for deletion here is File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg, where Charging Bull is so clearly not the object of the picture that, if you did not know what the bull looked like, the brown objects on the right could be just about anything.
That said, there are some images which definitely should be deleted, e.g. File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg and File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg. Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for a formal vote,  Delete File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 04.jpg, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 79.jpg, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 80.jpg (these three are my own pictures but I have no problem with deletion), File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg, File:Bull Wall Street (6173547669).jpg, File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg, File:IMAG7199 (34138459952).jpg, File:New york (9787993752).jpg, File:New York City (4890606552).jpg, File:The Wall Street Bull (5934546528).jpg, File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg, and perhaps File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg and File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg.  Keep the remaining files. Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg not de minimis? The Charging Bull is not the subject of the photograph (a photo taken from a distance and is of the street and buildings, which have FoP in the US) and is mostly blocked by people and only the top of the rear is visible if you’re looking hard enough.
I’ve not looked at all of the others yet. Bidgee (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the nominator even bothered to check any of the images, instead indiscriminately nominating all files in Category:Charging Bull except for the covered bull (which has no chance at being deleted). To me, this is a very careless DR made simply because "the image is in the category, that means Charging Bull is not de minimis". Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that one passes de mimimis. But is it worthwhile keeping as a generic NYC street scene? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree tat the nom did not investigate the images for whether or not the use of the sculpture was de minimis or not. Certainly my image, File:Shooting Charging Bull.jpg is pretty much the definition of de minimis, as thre focus of the picture is not the sculpture itself, but the photographers taking images of it. Keep all until the nom take the time and effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, and a trout to boot Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete No FoP for this.
I'm unconvinced by the de minimis claims. Maybe for this one, File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg, because there's a focus to that which isn't the Bull. But the others are either the Bull (a problem) or else they have no focus and they're a crowd of people blocking sight of the Bull. Now those might pass for de minimis, but I think that same argument then makes them fail COM:SCOPE! I see little need for a photo which describes as "A row of bollards, stopping anyone getting near, or us photographing, a copyrighted sculpture". If anyone wants to claim that these do have scope value (I think the 99% one does, maybe File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg too) then I wouldn't argue. But for general street scenes, we can and have done better with other images. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these really count as generic street scenes. These scenes are of a very specific location in NYC that can be easily identified. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg is a very identifiable image of the southern end of Broadway facing southward; it would be fine if not for the bull. And File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg is an image of the same location facing northward. Both have clear educational use, as they can be used to illustrate the southern terminus of en:Broadway (Manhattan). Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting some of these images would be sending the message that certain places cannot be photographed for Commons in any way, because of the existence of copyrighted sculpture there. The entire purpose of the de minimus standard is to allow those places to be photographed as long as the appearance of the copyrighted object is minimal not non-existant and therefore does not abrogate the rights of the copyright holder. With many of these images, if they were advertised for sale as images of the bull statue, the sellers would be laughed at, the amount of the bull showing is so minimal.

This entire nomination is an exercise in overreach and carelessness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion above and the few images I checked, this is just another indiscriminate DR.  Keep all, without prejudice to more targeted nominations with specific rationales. Brianjd (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: without prejudice to renomination of smaller groups. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 November 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:Charging Bull 7

[edit]

No FOP in the US for artwork/sculptures

Elisfkc (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Charging_Bull&oldid=811405963"