Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sequoias in EuroDisney, some years later.jpg
No FOP in France . According to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lac Disney, "the whole resort (including the lake, the fence in the foreground etc.) is potentially copyrighted." Since this displays a lot of the building, I believe that it is a FOP violation Elisfkc (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep I am the uploader.- First, I uploaded a photo of 2009. There was a DR and a discussion with a result as kept : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sequoia Lodge.jpg.
- Then, there was a new DR by yourself, dear Elisfkc. And the result was destroyed in a no-coherent way : Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lac Disney. At that time, you wrote this in the discussion :
::@Tangopaso: my apologies, when I was nominating files, I did not see the previous deletion requests on any of the images that I nominated. That is my mistake. Elisfkc (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please notice that on the present photo, the main subject is the sequoias and not the building. Because it is possible to see the growth of the trees after 8 years. Are there other photos to show growth of sequoias from a year to some years later ? This is a Commons:De minimis exception. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Last time, it was the decision of the closing admin that it violated FOP. FYI, part of the reason I nominate files like this for deletion is so that there is a review of the file. I would rather nominate 10 files that are not FOP violations, than let one stick around that might be one that will cause problems down the road. Elisfkc (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize, but with my weak english language knowing, I dont understand what you wrote...--Tangopaso (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- La déclaration ci-dessus, traduite avec goolge, traduit:
- I apologize, but with my weak english language knowing, I dont understand what you wrote...--Tangopaso (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
La dernière fois, c'est la décision de l'administrateur de fermeture qui a violé FOP. FYI, une partie de la raison pour laquelle je nomme des fichiers comme celui-ci pour la suppression est afin qu'il y ait une révision du fichier. Je préférerais proposer 10 fichiers qui ne sont pas des violations de la FOP, que de laisser s'en tenir à celui qui pourrait causer des problèmes sur la route. Elisfkc (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- If I understand well, you prefer to delete 10 files that dont violate FOP rather than keeping one which doesnt violate FOP. Right ? Excuse me, but this is stupid. If you do that, you will have to delete all the files of EuroDisney where there is a building or a part of a building. And it is unuseful to discuss about DR's ! And why dont you look to categories such as Category:La Défense : you will find plenty of photos of skyscrapers that violate FOP (especially photos uploaded by the bot panoramio). I am careful about FOP problem in my uploads. I even put some warning messages to avoid upload of copyrighted buildings. But I say that in my photo, the main subject is the sequoias and not the building. And the building is more than half hidden by the trees. My photo is a Commons:De minimis exception. If you dont agree, I wish the opinion of other persons. --Tangopaso (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have already gone through all of the pictures of Disneyland Paris and done so. No matter what, someone else will be looking at this image, because I am not an administrator, and an administrator has to close this request. Elisfkc (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I have an idea on how to deal with this. Just break the images in half so there are two distinct comparison images of the sequoias. The "focus" on the building would be broken and therefore FOP stuff would not affect it anymore. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Kept, as per the Terreaux case. Building is unavoidable. --Yann (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
