File:Vulcan visitor centre collection high.JPG

cannot see how including the (copyrighted as otherwise proven) autographs happened incidentally. They are clearly the focus of the picture. This however is a requirement to keep the image under the DM-clause, see Commons:De_minimis#Canada. Isderion (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museu Valencia de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.JPG where the community has decided that photographs of a collection count as Commons:De_minimis. This is the same as File:Replicas of Academy Award statuette 3.jpg and many of the other files we have of collections. File:Cadillac Ranch.jpg probably is a violation since the whole collection is actually one 3D sculpture. Btw, the nom seems a little upset at me so they have gone through my uploads out of spite and tagged a few. See: File:Barry Pepper 2013.jpg. I just sent a reminder about to his agent. OTRS should be closing as keep on that one soon. I hadn't even noticed that it hadn't been done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a very bold, but wrong interpretation of the DR you mentioned. First it's not even said that the DR-decision there was right, nor would I call it a "community-decision". Please also note that in that case the file was kept, as according to Carl Lindberg "the main subject is the the general scene in the museum, without any focus on the individual photos at all, other than they happened to be the displayed works at the time". Here however, the focus is on the copyrighted autographs.

Again please explain how the autopraphs are incidentally in the image.

Regarding the other stuff: I nominated one image of the Canoe1967 for deletion and he guesses my motives and assumes "spite". This imho violates COM:AGF and en:Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Isderion (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I call BS on that. These images have been here quite a while and 5 mins after I chew your butt you tag two of them? Get real.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Kept: speedy keep, bad faith nom. Also, DM certainly seems applicable: the photos are too small/too blurry to be used in an application where copyright would be infringed. FASTILY 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Vulcan visitor centre collection high.JPG

it's a very clear shot of copyrighted work and contrary to the closing admin's statement is not small/too blurry; you can see the photos quite well Isderion (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted: You'd have to blur out all of these photographs to even keep considering this image and it's obvious the photos are the focus. Pretty clear copyright violations. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year!. --Missvain (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)