Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apatosaurus by Papo.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyrighted toy. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete I have to agree. While the photo licence at Flickr is ok, this is a derivative work of a non-free object. The actual modelling and painting scheme of the dinosaur results from the original artist's creativity making it an original piece of work- Delete per COM:TOYS. De728631 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep The copyrights lie on the 3D object and mold. Showing a 2D photo of a toy does not infringe the copyrights of the toymaker (in contrast to copying the 3D mold and using it to create an unlicensed copy). MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 10:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is wrong. The 2D photo infringes on the copyright of the original 3D model the same way a photo of a sculpture or architecture infringes on copyright if there is no freedom of panorama. We regurarily have to delete images of 3D artwork from countries without freedom of panorama. This case is exactly the same, only the original item is much smaller in scale. De728631 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- From where I come, a 2D photography of 3D artworks are allowed and not considered a copyright infringement. You call this "freedom of panorama" but the general principle covers 3D objects which are not necessarily structures or street statues, such as cars, consumer products, toys etc. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 19:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama applies only to works that are permanently displayed in public. And we also need to consider the legal situation in the United States where the Commons files are hosted. Toys can be copyrighted there (and usually are). To quote from COM:TOYS: "Just as you cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you cannot upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokémon figures. ... 'Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function.'" De728631 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- From where I come, a 2D photography of 3D artworks are allowed and not considered a copyright infringement. You call this "freedom of panorama" but the general principle covers 3D objects which are not necessarily structures or street statues, such as cars, consumer products, toys etc. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 19:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is wrong. The 2D photo infringes on the copyright of the original 3D model the same way a photo of a sculpture or architecture infringes on copyright if there is no freedom of panorama. We regurarily have to delete images of 3D artwork from countries without freedom of panorama. This case is exactly the same, only the original item is much smaller in scale. De728631 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: A photograph of a copyrighted sculpture (which this is) infrines on the sculptures copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
