Commons:Deletion requests/File:Musée de l'érotisme 011.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.
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Marcel Duchamp's metathesis of "utilitarian function" among works of art - Which part exactly, @A1Cafel? It looks to have an "intrinsic utilitarian function": one copulates with it.
- BTW, the Mickey Mouse bit there is wrong. Zezen (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment This is a hard case (no pun intended). On the one hand, it intuitively looks like it should be copyrightable, just like any other doll. But on the other hand, a production car is not copyrightable while a very close scale model of it would be, so looks can be deceiving. A closer analogy would be food: a dish at a fine-dining restaurant, no matter how well-plated, is not copyrightable as the placement of the ingredients affects the taste and therefore the function; however, a cake with a photo printed on the frosting would be copyrightable, since the photo is clearly separable as the taste wouldn't change if the frosting were plain white. I'll reach out for some more opinions on whether the artistic aspects here are separable from its function. Perhaps we could add it to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter at the conclusion of this case if it gets a solid consensus one way or another. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)- Delete. Sculptures and dolls are clearly copyrightable. The only functional non-copyritable part of this doll is between its legs (not shown in the image). Ruslik (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- The thing is, the entirety of the doll is meant to be felt and touched as well; the question is whether that is separable from its visual appearance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete One could argue the 3D shape of the doll is not copyrightable, but the printing on the doll almost certainly is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - If children playing with dolls is not "utility" (as U.S. courts have decided), I don't see how adults playing with dolls could be either. And even if this could be considered a utility article, it would be difficult to argue that the design is separable from the function. Nosferattus (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
