Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louis Vuitton portemonnee.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.
The copyright of the pattern on the wallet is registered with U.S. Copyright Office. This page also confirms that the description text from the copyright registration is indeed the pattern in the image in question. Wcam (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- This image seems photographed in Netherlands, we need professors on their copyright status. @Rd232, Natuur12, L.tak, Martinvl, and Nemo bis: @Blue Elf, DarwIn, Majora, Gazebo, and Vysotsky: @4nn1l2, Arjuno3, Minorax, BrightRaven, and Ucucha: @Ellywa, Brainulator9, Multichill, 1Veertje, and Ciell: @Krinkle, Lymantria, P199, Romaine, and Rudolphous: @Trijnstel and Wutsje: --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not a professor :) 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a padawan at best, but I think Commons being an American website means even if this was allowed in the Netherlands, whether real or counterfeit (if the description and annotation are to be believed), the photograph would still be derivative of the design, I think... maybe? Pinging @Clindberg seeing as he's the one professor that was not mentioned. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Question here would be if this could be considered as a infringement to the copyright of the printed or woven design that appears on the objects surface, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Clothing. Ciell (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Tend to
Keep as per Ciell, fashions are not copyrightable in the United States, and to the best of my knowledge LV is likely below the Dutch TOO. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt whether this can be kept. The link given be user:Ciell also says "In any case, care must be taken not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface". I would think the design of Vuitton will be protected very well e.g. by European model right which needs registration in addition to the copyright. Much can be found about model right, for instance here https://www.blatterlegal.com/en/knowledge-base/intellectual-property/the-concurrence-of-copyright-and-model-right . Perhaps we can ask advice from Wikimedia Nederland for the general case of prints on clothing and other designed objects? Elly (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not a professor but I can look up what professors wrote about this subject, applied art. Namely: "Het gaat hier om industriële vormgeving, de vormgeving van het uiterlijk van producten. Er kunnen zeer uiteenlopende producten onder vallen als behang, taarten, vijvers, sleutelhouders." (prof. mr. P.G.F.A. Geerts & mr. drs. A.M.E. Verschuur (2020). Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht 2020/537). Therefor, yes, a designer wallet can certainly protected by copyright law. Also from Kort begrip, the criteria for copyright protected: 1) voldoende nauwkeurig en objectief kunnen worden geïdentificeerd; en 2) oorspronkelijk zijn, in die zin dat het gaat om een eigen intellectuele schepping. Kort begrip also states "Andere eisen mogen door de auteursrechtwetgeving van de lidstaten niet gesteld worden.2 Dus ook niet aan voorwerpen met een gebruiksfunctie (industriële vormgeving)." Thus
Delete. Wallets can have a copyright and this wallet clearly meets the threshold of originality. Therefor this picture isn't free in the source country as required per com:L. Natuur12 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- For the U.S., I'm not sure that the photo is infringing. The pattern seems copyrightable, but it's a photo of the entire (utilitarian) purse. The Ets Hokin decision said that a photo of a bottle was not derivative of the label on the bottle, even if that was copyrightable itself, unless the photo was focusing on the label itself. Similarly, while many clothing patterns are copyrightable, we don't delete photos of people wearing those clothes. Seems like this is in that same realm -- is the photo there to show off the expression in the pattern, or is the pattern incidental (i.e. was the idea to photo the product, regardless of what pattern was or was not there)? Secondly, the cited copyright registration says it was a selection and arrangement of 33 items, and that it was derivative of an earlier work. I don't count 33 items there, so it's not reproducing the entire work, and a partial selection / arrangement does not necessarily still carry a copyright (since there are fewer elements). I tend to think that the portion shown would likely still qualify, but really don't think the photo is focusing on it enough for the photo to be derivative. The mentioned model right is 1) a non-copyright restriction, and 2) does not have the same derivative work concept I don't think. So not sure how that applies here. Really, I can't think of a case where a photo like this has been ruled derivative. Not sure I want to delete stuff like this without a precedent to point to (and rather, the precedents seem to go the other way). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Still, if we want to keep the file, we must ignore the "free in the source country" rule as per com:L. In the entire EU utilitarian can have a copyright after al. Natuur12 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: EU countries are also not iron plates, they also have different TOO levels, for example, a knife could be copyrightable in Sweden, while in Italy it's possible that some but not all logos of FC teams can be public domain. So the question is simply "Hey, is LV logo beyond TOO in NL or not?" --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is not just the logo, is it the wallet as well. Both aren't PD in the Netherlands. Not without significant doubt at least. The threshold of originality is harmonized in the EU. Different member states can interpret the norm differently, but this shouldn't cause major differences between member states like utilitarian being protected by copyright in one country and not by another. However, the problem with the knife example (Danmark) is that this jurisprudence predates harmonization. Some of our older examples are null and void. Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: EU countries are also not iron plates, they also have different TOO levels, for example, a knife could be copyrightable in Sweden, while in Italy it's possible that some but not all logos of FC teams can be public domain. So the question is simply "Hey, is LV logo beyond TOO in NL or not?" --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Still, if we want to keep the file, we must ignore the "free in the source country" rule as per com:L. In the entire EU utilitarian can have a copyright after al. Natuur12 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- The EU threshold can definitely be interpreted different by the countries. Still, presuming that the pattern itself is copyrightable, the wallet is completely another matter. It is true that some EU countries can protect applied art through copyright, but whether that is actually creative enough to be protected that way (other than the pattern) is far from obvious and maybe not even too likely. What makes this obviously a wallet from that company other than the pattern? What makes it differ from wallets that came before it? Its not simply that any product automatically has copyright protection, and that any photo of any product is therefore a derivative work. There are a couple cases of photos of works that were clearly protected as applied art being ruled derivative, but this looks like a fairly straightforward wallet to me. Most of the time, those works are more protected against competing products rather than photos of them being a problem. I would prefer far better actual court cases as precedent before we delete stuff like this from Commons. There are those who accuse Commons of being deletionists, i.e. stretching to find reasons to delete stuff that has never been proven to be a problem in real life, and while those are sometimes ignorant of actual court cases, there are times those are legitimate complaints as well, and I fear this is straying into that latter territory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Carl: There is a case about a card holder. The court of Breda ruled that the defendant violated the copyright and model rights of the plaintiff and violated their patent. "Simple", "like any other wallet", those are irrelevant when deciding if something is protected by copyright in the EU. There are the two criteria I cited in my post of 14:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC) and nothing else. Any other criteria is illegal for EU member states to apply. However, if someone would go to court over this photograph, the plaintiff would probably not be awarded anything because there are no damages. But com:PCP forbids such a line of reasoning. As for a picture as a derivative work, the university level textbook Kort begrip states the following: Aw brengt onder het begrip ‘verveelvoudiging’ het vastleggen van het werk of een gedeelte daarvan op enig voorwerp dat bestemd is om een werk ten gehore te brengen of te vertonen. De bepaling dient slechts ter verduidelijking. Het vastleggen van een werk is immers het vervaardigen van een exemplaar van een stoffelijk voorwerp waarin het werk is belichaamd en dat valt reeds onder de primaire betekenis van het begrip verveelvoudigen (zie nr. 569). Therefor, it is more likely than not that a picture of a by copyright protected wallet (a work) is also a "verveelvoudiging". The reason why Commons is accused of being deletionist is because policy is US oriented and often out of touch with reality and therefor not always suitable for EU, African and Asian related cases. I do believe my argument is based on reliable literature, policy and case law. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: That link is a decision about patents, and secondarily a design registration, both of which are non-copyright restrictions and are irrelevant here. The plaintiff in that case also threw in copyright infringement claims, but the judge saw no need to issue an injunction based on those, so ignored them. The defendant was judged guilty of infringing the patent though, so there was an injunction based on that. Nothing in there is about copyright. If there were further decisions later on in that case, sure bring those up -- but that link has no bearing on the "free" status whatsoever, other than those claims were dismissed at least as concerned the injunction, so they did not evaluate whether a copyright existed or it was infringed. In general, patents and the design registrations are to protect against competing products. A photograph is not a competing product, so photos are completely outside the scope of that stuff. The usual intention for applied art is similar, just competing products, but for countries which use copyright to protect applied art, the derivative work situation can indeed come into play. I'm not arguing that directly -- I'm pretty sure there was a case over a stylish Swedish chair which was ruled to be copyright infringement, and probably a couple of others. It was abundantly clear that the product in question qualified though. Whether a cloth wallet qualifies is an entirely different question -- using a higher quality leather would have no bearing on copyright. This claim is that the copyright on the pattern itself could cause the photo to become derivative, which is an entirely different situation than if the object itself was copyrightable. And it is far from clear that the wallet itself would qualify for applied art copyright -- the pattern sure, but less sure about anything else. And if the photo is not focusing on the pattern, I'm not sure that would qualify as a derivative work in either the US or the EU. I'm not aware of any precedent case in the EU for that situation. I'm sure it's possible to make a copyrightable wallet, but that does not mean that any wallet qualifies. And the link you sent, the question was ignored and not addressed, since the patent and design registration infringement seemed fairly clear and it was ruled on those grounds only. The EU copyright criteria is whether a work is the "author's own intellectual creation". If it's similar to ones that have come before, then those aspects are not the author's own creation, and not their copyright. So yes, "simple" and "like other wallets" would indeed come into play. They are meaningless when it comes to patents of course, but we are only concerned about copyright here. A photograph of an object does not violate patents, only a competing physical product would, so I don't see how that ruling is relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Carl: my mistake regarding the case law. I should have taken a more thorough look. I'm going to leave it like that. The discussion is surely interesting but I do believe the closing admin has plenty of reading material as it is :). Natuur12 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wcam: So far, could you please withdraw your this case? I really think that there are something must be clarified elsewhere, e.g. on COM:VPC, on or about the EU laws, via a broad discussion. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: That link is a decision about patents, and secondarily a design registration, both of which are non-copyright restrictions and are irrelevant here. The plaintiff in that case also threw in copyright infringement claims, but the judge saw no need to issue an injunction based on those, so ignored them. The defendant was judged guilty of infringing the patent though, so there was an injunction based on that. Nothing in there is about copyright. If there were further decisions later on in that case, sure bring those up -- but that link has no bearing on the "free" status whatsoever, other than those claims were dismissed at least as concerned the injunction, so they did not evaluate whether a copyright existed or it was infringed. In general, patents and the design registrations are to protect against competing products. A photograph is not a competing product, so photos are completely outside the scope of that stuff. The usual intention for applied art is similar, just competing products, but for countries which use copyright to protect applied art, the derivative work situation can indeed come into play. I'm not arguing that directly -- I'm pretty sure there was a case over a stylish Swedish chair which was ruled to be copyright infringement, and probably a couple of others. It was abundantly clear that the product in question qualified though. Whether a cloth wallet qualifies is an entirely different question -- using a higher quality leather would have no bearing on copyright. This claim is that the copyright on the pattern itself could cause the photo to become derivative, which is an entirely different situation than if the object itself was copyrightable. And it is far from clear that the wallet itself would qualify for applied art copyright -- the pattern sure, but less sure about anything else. And if the photo is not focusing on the pattern, I'm not sure that would qualify as a derivative work in either the US or the EU. I'm not aware of any precedent case in the EU for that situation. I'm sure it's possible to make a copyrightable wallet, but that does not mean that any wallet qualifies. And the link you sent, the question was ignored and not addressed, since the patent and design registration infringement seemed fairly clear and it was ruled on those grounds only. The EU copyright criteria is whether a work is the "author's own intellectual creation". If it's similar to ones that have come before, then those aspects are not the author's own creation, and not their copyright. So yes, "simple" and "like other wallets" would indeed come into play. They are meaningless when it comes to patents of course, but we are only concerned about copyright here. A photograph of an object does not violate patents, only a competing physical product would, so I don't see how that ruling is relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Carl: There is a case about a card holder. The court of Breda ruled that the defendant violated the copyright and model rights of the plaintiff and violated their patent. "Simple", "like any other wallet", those are irrelevant when deciding if something is protected by copyright in the EU. There are the two criteria I cited in my post of 14:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC) and nothing else. Any other criteria is illegal for EU member states to apply. However, if someone would go to court over this photograph, the plaintiff would probably not be awarded anything because there are no damages. But com:PCP forbids such a line of reasoning. As for a picture as a derivative work, the university level textbook Kort begrip states the following: Aw brengt onder het begrip ‘verveelvoudiging’ het vastleggen van het werk of een gedeelte daarvan op enig voorwerp dat bestemd is om een werk ten gehore te brengen of te vertonen. De bepaling dient slechts ter verduidelijking. Het vastleggen van een werk is immers het vervaardigen van een exemplaar van een stoffelijk voorwerp waarin het werk is belichaamd en dat valt reeds onder de primaire betekenis van het begrip verveelvoudigen (zie nr. 569). Therefor, it is more likely than not that a picture of a by copyright protected wallet (a work) is also a "verveelvoudiging". The reason why Commons is accused of being deletionist is because policy is US oriented and often out of touch with reality and therefor not always suitable for EU, African and Asian related cases. I do believe my argument is based on reliable literature, policy and case law. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The EU threshold can definitely be interpreted different by the countries. Still, presuming that the pattern itself is copyrightable, the wallet is completely another matter. It is true that some EU countries can protect applied art through copyright, but whether that is actually creative enough to be protected that way (other than the pattern) is far from obvious and maybe not even too likely. What makes this obviously a wallet from that company other than the pattern? What makes it differ from wallets that came before it? Its not simply that any product automatically has copyright protection, and that any photo of any product is therefore a derivative work. There are a couple cases of photos of works that were clearly protected as applied art being ruled derivative, but this looks like a fairly straightforward wallet to me. Most of the time, those works are more protected against competing products rather than photos of them being a problem. I would prefer far better actual court cases as precedent before we delete stuff like this from Commons. There are those who accuse Commons of being deletionists, i.e. stretching to find reasons to delete stuff that has never been proven to be a problem in real life, and while those are sometimes ignorant of actual court cases, there are times those are legitimate complaints as well, and I fear this is straying into that latter territory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: the people discussing this object cannot come to a consensus. In order to prevent possible severe consequences for re-users of this photo if they would come into contact with the Louis Vuitton lawyers it seems best to delete the image per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
