Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dancejapan BBG New York April 2019.jpg
No COM:FOP for artwork in USA. The background display is a part of the performance and cannot reasonably be considered de minimis. Mysterymanblue 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep The background was used for all performances on the Cherry Esplanade Stage that day, including comedy, dance, music, etc., and thus cannot be considered an integral part of this act. It is merely an incidental piece, very different from a background used in a play or musical which was specifically designed to complement the performer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Per m:Wikilegal/De Minimis Use of Protected Works under US Copyright Law:
If a copyrighted work is particularly unique (Davis v. Gap), reproduced fully (Hirsch), is used in the exact manner it is supposed to be used (Ringgold), or is prominent or quite visible in the background, then de minimis may not succeed. However, copyrighted work that truly is minimal in nature (Vault Corp.), obscured or in the background (LMNOPI; Gayle), then it seems likely that de minimis would apply.
- The mural appears to be unique, almost fully reproduced, and used in the manner it was meant for (serving as a backdrop to all performances of that day). It spans the entire width of the image. The mural also bears a copyright symbol.
In two cases involving public art, murals and graffiti, courts found that de minimis applies because the art in both cases appeared fleetingly and, most importantly, was in the background, obstructed, and not in focus.
- While the mural does appear in the background, its appearance is not fleeting, it is largely unobstructed, and it is in focus.
- There are a variety of opinions on when de minimis should apply. In this case, the work is so prominent in the background that I think it is difficult to argue that, under any interpretation, the amount or degree of copying is insignificant. The work takes up a far greater portion of the image compared to the subject. Mysterymanblue 17:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are interpreting some of the words without considering the context in which they were used. I don't think "unique" means "above TOO" here, but rather "noticeably different from alternatives that would fundamentally change the final work". Since the purpose of the photo is to capture the performer, any background would do, and there is nothing unique about this background. This is why I drew the comparison to a theatre set, where changing the background would greatly reduce the meaning of the final image. Per COM:DM #4, the background is "not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)". Also, it is not "almost fully reproduced"; half of it is cut off at the left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Since the background is apparently not a part of the performance here, I'll consider it de minimis. --Rosenzweig τ 14:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
