Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erminig.jpeg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Erminig.jpeg

[edit]

Likely copyvio, per COM:TOYS. Fæ (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The rationale you link makes no mention of France, so this seems more like this nomination is trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. This is also the mascot of Wikimedia France, so it is absurd to think they would claim copyright over this, when there are many images up of this plush (I also think they would have gone after the category by now, if they really cared). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
France is no exception to EU copyright. It does not even have FoP. --Fæ (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator please note, the comments made above were shortly before the WMF enacted a global office ban for Kevin Rutherford's account. The evidence for the ban remains unpublished. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss arguments, not people — NickK (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The WikiCon DR quoted above appears to have failed to take into account copyright rationales and included a personal attack by the closing administrator. As such it cannot be considered to set a precedent for other deletion requests, or be thought a neutral closure based on current policy or an understanding of copyright law. The focus of the photograph is on a decorative plushie with sufficient design and artistic elements to be copyrightable, suggestions that plushies may be legally considered utilitarian objects for copyright purposes are unsupported by cases or existing legal analysis. Were anyone convinced that the design is uncopyrightable or keen to set a useful precedent for Commons that might add to COM:TOO or COM:UA, they could ask the owning Wikimedia chapter to take photographs of the manufacturer's label for more information and analysis of the related status intellectual property, such as source country, trade mark and manufacturer. Such a precedent would make the vast majority of soft toy figures fair game for Commons to host any photograph of them, not just photographs taken at Wikimedia related events. This would be super useful as an image host, but it would undermine the current scope of Commons, and this project's usefulness as a source of verifiably legally free images for reusers such as journalists and book authors. --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, AFAIK there are no "owning Wikimedia chapters". Secondly, your reasoning that copyright status depends on the usage of a utilitarian object is clearly wrong, as there should be no difference in copyright status between a toy used by a child and the very same toy used as a decoration. Applying your reasoning to automobiles, all photos in Category:Automobile collections or Category:Automobile museums display utilitarian objects (i.e. automobiles) that are used for decorative and not for utilitarian purposes (e.g. people come to look at those cars and not to ride them). I think that we need a serious proof that once a toy is not used for utilitarian purposes it stops being an utilitarian object from copyright point of view, and I do not see any proof of this. Thus I think that all utilitarian objects, no matter whether it's a toy or an automobile, should be treated equally and fall under COM:UA — NickK (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per NickK. --Jcb (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Erminig.jpeg

[edit]

The previous deletion request closure relied on the reasoning from NickK, which was a radical argument based on utilitarian objects which is not reflected in COM:TOYS. Based on a series of strong counter views at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Interpreting_COM:TOYS_for_photographs_taken_by_established_Wikimedians, I am raising a second request as the photograph is a breach of COM:TOYS, specifically:

When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.

At the current time, there has been no evidence presented that the toy is public domain. Commons policies should be applied equitably regardless of who the photographer is, or how the photograph is being used. When closing this request, a closing administrator should take care to put valid copyright concerns and any significant doubt, above popular consensus. Fæ (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Utilitarian object, so as the flag. Trizek from FR 13:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain how this particular stuffed toy white ermine is not a stuffed toy, designed for children to play with, but a utilitarian object for some other practical purpose and so demonstrably public domain rather than copyrighted? I'm having difficulty seeing that reflected in Commons policies or verifiable copyright law. Please refer to COM:UA which is specific for toys: "...toys and models do not have utilitarian aspects and therefore in the United States (where Commons is hosted) such objects are generally considered protected as copyrighted works of art."
Please keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the uploader to demonstrate that the toy is public domain, no proof has yet been supplied. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Most toys are not utilitarian objects, per many many court cases. That is pretty much rock-solid in the U.S., and I would be surprised if it was any different in Europe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as being, directly, an image of a copyrighted 'stuffed animal'. Please see User:Elcobbola/Stuffed_Animals before saying we should keep this... the legal situation is explained quite well by that essay. Toys are not utilitarian objects under US law, and this fails COM:L on that basis. Reventtalk 03:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 06:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Erminig.jpeg&oldid=208035198"