Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AIDS Memorial Quilt

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

Files in Category:AIDS Memorial Quilt[edit]

There's zero evidence the artwork and photographs on these quilts in the public domain and FOP in the United States doesn't cover 2D public art. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Congresswoman Commemorates the 25th Anniversary of the AIDS Memorial Quilt (8282425166).jpg. The subject/focus of that photograph is clearly Nancy Pelosi with any artworks appearing rather small. Same with File:Jill Biden with AIDS quilt - 2012.jpg, which is centered on Jill Biden. SecretName101 (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Richard W Eastman.jpg should also be spared, as it similary focuses on a person not the quilt. Would be fine to crop the image closer to him. SecretName101 (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Cropped out the background and revdeled it. This one is okay to keep. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep File:Aids Quilt.jpg (any individual artworks are de minimus) SecretName101 (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File:APerkinsAIDSQuilt.jpg due to lack of distinctive qualities that would make it copyright-able. (PD-simple) SecretName101 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File:AIDS quilt, Washington, D.C LCCN2011631696.tif due to de minimus nature of indivdiaul artworks SecretName101 (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a number of of the images with titles begining with "AIDS Quilt at the National Building Museum" do not seem to capture any artwork in a manner that is inappropriate for commons. Many of them show artwork only in a manner that is de minimus SecretName101 (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Files like File:The Normal Heart 13979 (7601333530).jpg also only have the artwork shown in a de minimus manner and should be kept. SecretName101 (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least with the first file the quilt takes up 90% of the photograph. So you can't claim it's de minimis since it's clearly not minimal. Plus the image probably wouldn't even exist if not for the quilt to begin with. Although you could just blur it out, but then there would be essentially nothing left. So I think it's better just to delete the file. I don't really care about the second one though since its borderline.
I'm not sure what your talking about with the "individual artworks are de minimus" comment either. There's individual images on the quilts sure, but that doesn't mean the quilts themselves aren't copyrighted or even that specific images on them can't be either. That's not how de minimus works and the quilts in the images of the museum clearly take most of it and can be reproduced. So they aren't trivial to the images. Are you really going to argue the quilts in File:AIDS Quilt at the National Building Museum 14061 (7617422702).jpg or File:AIDS Quilt at the National Building Museum 14059 (7617434952).jpg are just minimal? The quilts are literally the only things in the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is an United States FOP case, as stated in the category and the rationale for deletion. File:087 Dia Mundial de la Sida, tapís a la façana de la Generalitat, pl. Sant Jaume (Barcelona).jpg is not from the United States (it's a photo taken in Barcelona of a quilt that can be assumed to be locally made) and seems unrelated to this discussion, although it was probably misscategorized. Therefore, I think it should be removed from this deletion request. If somebody thinks that it deserves a deletion request, a separate one should be opened with different arguments.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep on all. These are de minimis parts of an overall quilt. If you have specific issues with specific images, raise them individually rather than a bulk nomination of 69 images. Frankly, this kind of copyright nitpicking on Commons is damaging to multiple projects and is not constructive. It would be much more useful to withdraw this whole nomination, do the research to find specific problem files and relist those individually. Bulk nomination of dozens of files like this is unhelpful at best and might even come close to copyright trolling at worst. — OwenBlacker (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep on all #2.There are too many "de minimis" cases here. Please cancel this DR and open a new one for the clear-cut cases, and individual ones for anything dubious. Massive nominations like this, where vaguely connected but significantly different items are grouped together for elimination, are messy and unhelpful. I actually support cancelling and closing these kinds of nominations on sight to avoid wasting community time on something the nominator clearly did not care to spend time on.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like there's a bright line with "de minimis" and it's as much a waste of everyone's time to do 69 different nominations just because people can't be bothered to point out the one or two images that they think should be kept. Plus the DR backlog is already long enough without forcing people to do separate nominations for images that are clearly related to each other on top of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the person proposing a change from the status quo here. If you think it's important that these images be removed, do the work to justify that. If the DR backlog is "already long enough", perhaps you might consider not adding half-through-through large multiple-file nominations to it without doing the work to enable easier evaluation from people reviewing the nominations you have created. — OwenBlacker (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenBlacker: What statues quo? People nominate multiple images in the same category and having to do with the same subject/theme for deletion all the time. Users also pretty routinely vote "keep file X because of reason Y, but delete the rest." So I'm not really sure what statues quo your referring to. At the end of the day it's on people who participate in the DRs to properly review the images they are voting to keep or delete. That said, I have no problem with certain files being excluded from the DR that clearly aren't worth deleting. Someone struck a few of them out early and I'm perfectly fine with that. claiming everything should be kept just because you think a few are de minimis or acting like I'm copyright trolling just because you think a few shouldn't be deleted is just Wikilawyering though. My guess is that people with your kind of attitude about this will come up with an excuse to keep images like these regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I removed the couple of images that were either edited to exclude the quilts or borderline. I think the original justification for the deletion request still stands with most, if not all, of the remaining though and I'm not going to do 60 individual deletion request just because people want to Wikilawyer or act like I'm copyright trolling. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]