Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Advertisements in New York City

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:Advertisements in New York City edit

Derivative works of assorted advertisements (through LED screens, posters, billboards, or train bodies). The ads are modern and fail {{PD-US}}. COM:OTRS permissions for commercial licensing from the production companies of these ads are required. All fail U.S. de minimis which is based on triviality instead of incidental or not the main subject concept that is evident in European countries' de minimis (hence much sharper and more problematic). Blurring may solve some of the images' issues, and after blurring please cross out the ones that have their copyrighted ads censored.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment@JWilz12345: Keep Do you look for more than 1 second to the files that you nominate? Case in point, File:IMG 9124 - Copy (10677125074).jpg is about a publicity made by the New York state public-benefit corporation Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Do you know who took this photo? The same Metropolitan Transportation Authority, more specifically MTA Long Island Rail Road / John Spoltore. Tm (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Tm: done crossing out the file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Oppose I have to go with Tm. The majority of the images are focused on the locations, not the advertisements. File:NY 303 W 42nd Street Duane Reade IMG 2068.JPG is named for the Duane Reade drug store, not the massive advertisement for the Batman movie. File:Rebecca Taylor (12669281633).jpg seems to be focused on the graffiti and other vandalism. The Port Authority Bus Terminal uses a lot of advertising. So do buildings in Times Square. Honestly, if we deleted every picture of a building in NYC or London with an advertisement, we'd cut down the number of images too drastically. --DanTD (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @DanTD: I doubt File:NY 303 W 42nd Street Duane Reade IMG 2068.JPG is focused on the location. The copyrighted ad is too prominent to be considered as de minimis in US standards. Please read COM:DM United States: U.S. de minimis is based on triviality concept than accessory or incidental so much sharper. File:Rebecca Taylor (12669281633).jpg - it may have graffiti but there is still an image of a woman, likely based on a copyrighted photo of the subject. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - - Well, the image clearly states that it's for a Duane Reade franchise. The ad could just as easily be for Dr. Joe Schmoe's Miracle Tonic from 1893, and it still wouldn't make a difference to me. How many ads for various products have their been in Times Square for over 120 years? There's a big ad for one of Miranda Cosgrove's albums in the pic of the 2010 Bombing plot. That old Camel cigarettes ad from the 1940's is pretty big too. And a lot of the ads posted on subway station entrance stand out just as much as these. ----DanTD (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Hey, what store or clothing company is this ad for? All I see is an ad for something involving bikinis wrapped on a subway car. There's no clear product of any kind here. ----DanTD (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @DanTD: that is a derivative work of a copyrighted advertisement. Plus there is no FOP exception for graphic works like this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        
        And take note, old ads are fine because they may fall {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, for ads from 1977 backwards. For those ads from 1926 backwards: {{PD-US-expired}}. Take note the rule on COM:Derivative works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        
        See for examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cinderella girls outdoor ad.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:LRTA Class 2000. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        An advertisement for what? A clothing store? Bikinis? Florida? The Bahamas? ----DanTD (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @DanTD: advertisements that exhibit photographs and artistic or intricate layouts and designs fall under artistic works as graphic works. You cannot just use images of ads for commercial purposes without the production companies' permissions. One problem is that US FOP cannot be used as FOP is explicit to architecture only, not other public works like protected sculptures (like Cloud Gate and Charging Bull) or even murals. Perhaps only the Chinese FOP is very far enough to include works that are not meant to be permanent (like advertisements), as their FOP provision does not indicate if works that can be reproduced are permanent or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        So then what's the plan here? Is the whole damn category going to be eliminated now? Do the U.S. de minimis rules of the past no longer apply to the present? ----DanTD (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @DanTD: US de minimis is still compatible here. The problem is that it uses "triviality" than "incidental/accessory" concept that is applied to much of Europe and East/SE Asia. To be trivial means one cannot immediately notice the copyrighted element. There is no deletion of the entire category: other images pass triviality standard of U.S. deminimis, and a couple of images here show ads that are too old (PD-US / PD-US-no-notice or PD-US-not-renewed) to be copyrighted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        FYI, I can see a good reason for some of these ads to go, most notably the Rebecca Taylor ad. But every train, bus, building or street corner because they happen to contain an ad? That's a bit too extreme to me. Two others are also questionable; The Chanel building, even though the ad is for Chanel itself, and the an ad for the Brooklyn Cyclones, and their parent owners the New York Mets. at the very stadium where the Cyclones play. Speaking of which, there are all kinds of ads at sports stadiums including Yankee Stadium and Citi Field. Are you going to eliminate images of baseball games because a big ad for WB Mason or Utz Potato Chips is behind the players? And if the previous two images on that list I mentioned are FOP violations, wouldn't that also apply to the Category:Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest countdown clock category? ----DanTD (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have deleted images which served little or no purpose other than to show the commercial artwork, where it could not be reasonably argued to be incidental. This was the majority of of files in this request. Of the ones I have not deleted, they can generally be argued to show architecture or street scenes of the city, but many still have significant derivative content that I suggest be cropped or blurred if the files are to be kept. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: Thanks for your effort. After another 9 days nobody did crop or blur the image, so they are deleted today. --Ellywa (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]