File talk:Misplaced Spam.jpg

Is spam de minimis here?

The entire point of this image (per its description) is the juxtaposition of spam and the kosher section. Since spam is a key part of this image, it is hard to see how it could be de minimis.

Pinging @Angry Red Hammer Guy, Dronebogus, Moroder as users who uploaded this image, added the de minimis tag and promoted it to QI, respectively. Brianjd (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The copyrightable content on the label is de min because it could be airbrushed out or, I dunno, replaced with Wikipe-tan’s head or something. The point is really the juxtaposition of the words SPAM on the can and the KOSHER section label, which are both uncopyrightable. Dronebogus (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus You are applying de minimis to the copyrightable material on the label, while claiming that the product as a whole is OK. This seems to violate Commons:Threshold of originality: As a rule, copyright applies to a work as a whole. If a work contains a portion that is complex enough to receive copyright protection, then the whole work is considered to be copyrighted. One cannot upload said work to Commons by applying de minimis to the non-trivial portion. Brianjd (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Then blur out the offending blurry picture of the ungodly spam-based “meal”! Dronebogus (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus That sounds like a better solution. Brianjd (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Dronebogus (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Reported at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#File:Misplaced Spam.jpg for revision deletion (if they agree that the first revision is a copyright violation). Brianjd (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus Can you also do Misplaced Spam (Orig.).jpg (or nominate it for deletion if you don’t think it’s worth it)? Brianjd (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Commons:Deletion requests/File:Misplaced Spam (Orig.).jpg. Brianjd (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)