File:Dixit – How to Play and Tips.webm

see discussion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/10#h-Copyvio_concern-20251022210900 Copyright#Copyvio_concern; likely impermissible deriviative as per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Board_games. Cawfeecrow (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Keep This is a valid concern and not a very easy case. However, I think it's permissible proper CCBY. I think there could be an issue if it displayed the cards directly in front of the camera at high resolution. It's allowed for the same reason you can take high-resolution photos of places like busy streets or buildings that have all sorts of artistic T-shirts, shop signs, bottle covers, product labels, and whatnot in them. Instead let's add {{De minimis}} to the file description page. Regarding Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Board games it supports what I said regarding how clear things are recorded and whether it's the focus/center at photographs that are intended to illustrate the game board and/or the box are not normally acceptable. Photographs of a game in progress may possibly be allowable provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image, but that is unlikely to be the case if the whole board or box design is clearly shown and it's about photographs, not videos (which again is what I meant; here this is a video of the gameplay where some card art shown is de minimis). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting point. Your description of the work would seem to apply in the "maybe" section of COM:DM:

"Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. removing it would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply."

Despite the soundness of your argument, I still have my doubts. You are right in saying that this is not a very easy case. While graphics is a central part of Dixit (it's core mechanic is telling a story through , I'm not sure whether or not these specific graphics are particularly relevant, as (to my understanding) the game can be played without these base game cards. If it isn't, your side would be the one to take. You are absolutely right in saying the quality isn't high enough for reproduction.

I do take minor issue with your example of "It's allowed for the same reason you can take high-resolution photos of places like busy streets or buildings that have all sorts of artistic T-shirts, shop signs, bottle covers, product labels, and whatnot in them." as this would lean more toward COM:FOP, which isn't particularly relevant to this work from my understanding (though the two concepts are very linked to each other).

A situation keeps replaying in my mind and it goes as thus: Someone records their television while playing New Super Mario Bros. Wii with the intent of teaching the audience how to play a 2D platformer. This isn't a screen capture or any other high-quality recording method, simply a camera pointed at a bright LCD screen. This isn't attempting to depict New Super Mario Bros specifically, but rather the general mechanics of a 2D platformer. However, blurring/censoring the copyrighted material (graphics, music etc.) would make it useless as a learning tool. Is this or is this not De Minimis?

COM:DM Seems to rule that the difference between "very unlikely" to "definitely not" is if blurring the copyrighted material would still leave the work in a state of being potentially useful. I suppose we have to ask ourselves if every copyrighted area of this video was blurred out, would it still serve as a useful tutorial on how to play a game of Dixit. I confess that I haven't watched the entire video with sound on (my machine has audio issues that require a workaround), so I can't provide my personal opinion. Cawfeecrow (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Briefly re if blurring the copyrighted material would still leave the work in a state of being potentially useful I'm confidently sure that the video would still be very useful even when all the card graphics were blurred. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You very well may be right, and if you are, I might request for my nomination to be withdrawn. However, I'll wait until it's not just you and me in this discussion. As it stands now, all this will become is a game of "nuh-uh" from both sides, which isn't very productive. I also don't want to hastily form an opinion on this point specifically due to my inexperience*.

I am making this reply to let you know that I'm not ignoring your points, just simply waiting for a third opinion.

.*This would be where I would pull up consensus from past deletion requests, but it unfortunately seems that there is none resembling an issue like this one way or the other. I might have to dig even deeper though, as it might be hiding in a subcategory within a subcategory within a subcategory. Cawfeecrow (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cawfeecrow and @Prototyperspective

 Comment Hello, I'm just raising concern that the cards should not be too blurred, as they are required for an accurate understanding of the video (cf. 1:46-2:05) Wikisquack (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

So blurring would leave it in an impaired, not necessarily useless state?

Your comment does bring some concern to me. On one hand, if blurring it 'too much' would impair the viewers understanding of the video, would that not make the illustrations on the cards partially a reason for making it? It implies that the cards still have to be somewhat recognizable.

However, on the other hand, if blurring it still provides a useful (if poorer quality) video, that could mean the blurred version would still have some use on commons. This puts it again in the "potentially useful" camp.

Prototyperperspective was right in saying that this is not an easy case. My only thoughts right now is if the case is reasonably made for 'keep' (as in keeping a version of this video on commons, not necessarily the current unmodified file), blurring needs to be done. In a different context, this file can very easily be infringing. Cawfeecrow (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Clearly more than a de minimis representation. I do agree that this is fine to use on Wikipedia, however, it should really be uploaded under a fair-use rationale. It's fine to use it because it is necessary to understanding the game and is used for educational purposes, but we can't hold fair-use content here in Commons. Aplucas0703 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If this indeed needs to be deleted for potentially have more than de minimis representations, then it would be great if somebody could upload a new revision of the video with the relevant parts being blurred and get the prior revision deleted via Commons:REVDEL. I don't think this is just fair use but showing the cards just temporarily at low-resolution/quality sideways angles. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This is around what I think would be a fair decision. The entire concept of the video isn't necessarily a problem, but I do think there are some infringing areas. Cawfeecrow (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)