File:B-18916.jpg

No COM:FOP Taiwan for things that are not buildings. COM:DM also not applicable: Standing practice on Commons is that de minimis requires that the copyrighted work be unimportant enough so that an average reader will not notice if it is omitted. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. De minimis rules vary by jurisdiction. While the nominator's assertion that "de minimis requires that the copyrighted work be unimportant enough so that an average reader will not notice if it is omitted" is correct in certain jurisdictions (like Germany), it is not correct that this is always the case on Commons. It is certainly not true in Taiwan, where intent of the photographer is more important. It seems clear from the title and initial categorization that the intent was to capture a certain aircraft, regardless of that aircraft's livery. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  The sentence "de minimis requires that the copyrighted work be unimportant enough[...]" was actually a quote from Jameslwoodward (and he's often saying this in DR), not my reliance upon a German interpretation of De minimis / Beiwerk, even though it's really similar.

  @Tvpuppy: Do you happen to know some resources, perhaps government pages (ideally with translations) about laws that speak about the De minimis concept in Taiwan? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

   Comment, Other than the email excerpt from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) that can be seen at COM:DM Taiwan, I can't really find anything else from the government that discuss this concept.

  • In the excerpt (for artistic works that are displayed publicly outdoor in a long term basis), TIPO explained that it is allowed if the existence of the artistic work is "attached" in the photo, and not the "theme of the photography" or the "focus of taking the photograph".
  • Note that in the excerpt, TIPO used the term "拍攝重點" (focus of taking the photograph), which the word "拍攝" (taking photograph) is a verb. So, in my opinion, the focus during the action of taking the photograph should also be considered, not just the result of the photo. Therefore, I think the intention of the photographer also matters here.
  • Regarding this case, as mentioned by IronGargoyle, I think it can be argued that the Pokemon livery is not the "focus" of this photo if the "focus" is specifically the plane itself, which means the Pokemon livery is just "attached" in this photo, hence allowed under COM:DM Taiwan.

  Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  This: it can be argued that the Pokemon livery is not the "focus" of this photo if the "focus" is specifically the plane itself is quite the daring interpretation in my opinion, as it feels to me that intellectually separating a vehicle from its actual livery for copyright purposes is quite an intellectual contortion (using a "mental abrasive paper" or "mentally sandblasting" a vehicle as if the livery is a nuisance is not really honest, the usual thing would be to think "Oh what a nice vehicle!").

  The example given in the message referenced in COM:DM Taiwan (https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/copyright/692-16830.html / quoted from Google translation): However, if such artwork is used as a background for portraits or other landscape photographs, and the artwork is "incidentally" present in the photograph (rather than being the focus) is too dissimilar to airplane spotter images. The plane itself is the motif, not a background feature behind a person or another main image element.

  Illustrating B-18916 could be possible with e.g. File:China Airlines A350-900 B-18916 departing LAX.jpg: no copyrighted livery, the logo may be below COM:TOO US and should be permissible per COM:DM US. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

   Weak keep for now.

  As I have been trying to keep pressure on the isolated cases: good luck everyone in what to put on all eight parameters of non-free use template because the spotter's intention was believed to be put on a handful of Wikipedia articles about the PokéJets; not just for the English. How is it OK that your example is a good alternative? Defeats the purpose of the article(s) cited. Trust me, it failed once. Potential counter-productive collaborative effort if your recent actions become the norm... do or will the other administrators here condone this kind of unannounced removal over time is anybody's guess now.

  Just say the word and let them be aware of these by templates like {{Wikipedia DR}} because it will mean overturning almost 20 years of spotter freedom in Commons. Leaving with Jdforrester's keep quote: The de minimis argument seems fair; every aircraft that isn't bare aluminium is trivially covered in copyrighted material. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 22:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I, and the law, disagree. Since we have at least 545 photographs of Airbus 350-900, the only reason that anyone would spend time arguing that this particular image should be kept is the copyrighted painting. Also, as I have said many times, the test of de minimis is if an average observer would not notice if the copyrighted material were omitted. That's obviously not the case here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Poketalker: that "The de minimis argument seems fair; every aircraft that isn't bare aluminium is trivially covered in copyrighted material." does not look very well informed. The standard liveries of en:Korean Air, en:Air France, en:British Airways, en:Southwest Airlines, en:Condor (airline), en:American Airlines, en:Delta Air Lines and a lot of others are neither bare metal nor apparently copyrightable (protected as trademarks, certainly yes, but that's irrelevant for Commons). And as a reminder: the files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet were, baring 3 legit exceptions, deleted later. This illustrates that the De minimis defence was unsuccessful. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)