Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oswald iwerks.svg

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:Oswald iwerks.svg

[edit]

Per COM:CHARACTER. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Also:[reply]

Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which is the correct way to conduct this discussion, but here it is (as the author and uploader) – at least four reasons (there may be more) speak against deletion: [1] it is small (fair use), [2] it is completely digitally redrawn with free software (Inkscape, which makes it another type of a media), [3] it is in use (tree pages), and [4] it is almost 100 years old (Rule of the shorter term, Works created before 1978 etc.).
I am not a lawyer, but the work was created in the USA, so the laws of this country may apply and should take precedence. You cannot delete based just on subjective opinion (e.g. this cannot be processed with OTRS, since the copyright owner, Ub Iwerks is dead).
P.S. – just a sidenote: the above said applies to File:Oswald iwerks.svg and File:Oswald jump.svg only, the File:Oswaldrabbit03.jpg is not my work, I have nothing to do with this upload (and it is not used anywhere) so it would be correct to open a separate discussin about it–Jozefsu (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. As you may know, it is very hard to illustrate articles about visual content, and as an user (in a non-english Wikipedia article) for that purpose I created my own rendering of Ub Iwerks' work, so the files are – I repeat – my personal work. Digital rendering may never match the original perfectly so it basically makes it a tribute-work (you can easily check the SVG's digital content and signature, and I advise you to do so). Can this be settled simply by placing diffent copyright tag? I appreciate your (or any other administrator's) help.–Jozefsu (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Important Update: @Kaldari: It's an error – you actually overlooked my info at the Summary/Source section that the original work that was used to create the derivative SVGs was already a public domain!
No need to change anything. PLEASE REMOVE THE DELETION TAGS.
(@Kaldari: The file that is not by me, thus not my concern – Oswaldrabbit03.jpg – may also be a public domain! Hope this helps.)–Jozefsu (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jozefsu: Please read COM:CHARACTER. It doesn't matter if the images were extracted from a public domain source or were re-rendered. The character itself is copyrighted, thus these images are infringing on the character copyright. You are free to upload them to other wikis that accept Fair Use images (such as English Wikipedia), but Commons does not accept Fair Use images. It also doesn't matter that the character is almost 100 years old. Oswald the Lucky Rabbit's copyright doesn't expire until 2023 (and there's no controversy about this as Disney negotiated the copyrights to Oswald in 2006 from Universal so we know they were renewed). Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: I read it, and I disagree with some points listed there (but I guess my opinion isn't relevant in this case). If this was at public court there would be a different case (my point is: even courts are less technical in such cases), but if Wikimedia is clear with this as a policy (I am not certain if Wikimedia as a free, volunteer-based project has a rigid policy, but I can be wrong in my interpretation of what I have read over years) – I must surely respect the platform's rules.
BUT, I still think the deletion is NOT the best option here, there must be a solution based on mutual respect (me the contributor - you the admin). First, what about the original that was used as a derivative? It still says its in public domain, then I can simply replace my SVG work at Wikipedia with crops from it, right?
Also, did you read ALL my comments? A SVG-redrawn image – that simply doesn't match the original bit-by-bit – is still considered an artwork in its own right that simply cannot be copyrighted if the author puts it out free. As I understand it, it is a category of tribute-work (I don't know about visual arts, but in music its very common). As its obvious, I love Iwerks and all I've done – both the drawings and the article – are a tribute with sincere esteem!
Please, try considering my earlier arguments, and as I said I can conclude more, but most importantly don't act in the deletion alone. I would prefer hearing other Wikimedians' opinion also before a final decision is made. I've always held on to my freely invested work that I have put public, and yes I accept the fact that sometimes we win sometimes we lose.–Jozefsu (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read your entire argument. The fact that the images are new renderings of the character means that they are derivative works. You own the copyright on any elements that are completely new and unique, but Disney owns the copyright on the look and feel of the Oswald character. In other words, if the image is recognizable as Oswald, Disney has some stake in the copyright ownership and you must pay Disney a licensing fee to use it. This is why Warner Brother can't just come up with their own version of Mickey Mouse and start using it on their shows and merchandise. If you really want to understand character copyrights, please take a look at [1], [2], and [3]. Once the copyright on Oswald the character expires in 2023, you can create and upload as many unique renderings of Oswald as you want. Note, however, that most specific cartoons featuring Oswald will still be copyrighted until even later.
>"First, what about the original that was used as a derivative? It still says its in public domain, then I can simply replace my SVG work at Wikipedia with crops from it, right?"
No, if you crop the original image or substantially change it in any way, you are creating a new derivative work and violating Disney's character copyright by creating a new unauthorized reproduction of their character. And note that I have no intention of deleting your images myself. I'm just nominating them for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: Your argumentation is logical, and thank you for it, but sorry for continuing to fight for what I believe is right :)

Your articles are as much technical about it as much I consider myself un-technical (well unconventional, anyway we are not robots, we're human beings). Mickey Mouse is particularly good example of a character as it became an international symbol, an 'ownership of all Humankind'. And the initial concept was stolen right from Ub Iwerks (Walt himself never paid tribute to Ub, instead created a fame with a legend of a mouse that suddenly appeared in his room etc. long story made short). I must also disagree that people must pay (or actually pay) tribute in any use of Mickey just out of fear of a Megacompany. There are plenty of caricature and sarcastic dummy versions that look exactly like Mickey... Anyway, my argument is strongly against the interpretation of a derivative as being the same thing (though in my case the character is too recognisable). Based on many aforementioned argument no Court case would be won, as it is not that clear – you could always say "I changed the character enough, I used it only as an inspiration" – isn't that the basis of all art? We basically all copy each other. That is why I said that from the point of view of computing, the SVG image is just bunch of geometric shapes – it does not meet the threshold of originality (as in these clear cases: 1, 2).

I must update even more as in meantime I did some investigation on the copyright of the ominous derivative image, the File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg. The links were down, but are still accessible through here and here. If you look at it, there are some really clear legal explanations, although I agree not all cases are the same :(

● the first copyright info – while applying to short movie clips – explains that "the law at the time granted the owner 28 years to file a copyright registration" so if it was not renewed with the Copyright Office or the Library of Congress it may be that the copyright for these Oswald images have long run out. (OK, with your claims about Disney you discarded this.)
● as for the second case, I quote unaltered the most important (I'm sorry if you are familiar, but I use it as a case for prospective on-lookers): "Generally a film or still is protected by copyright if it is less than 95 years old... In 1988, the U.S. joined the Berne Copyright Convention which states that no formalities are required to obtain a copyright... However, prior to the 1976 Copyright Act, there was a previous copyright act, known as the Copyright Act of 1909. Under this statute, once an artist had created a work of art, he immediately was granted what was called an "unpublished copyright." ...The initial term of copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909 was 28 years... Once the 1976 Act was enacted which gave all works of art 75 years... Courts generally tend to back the copyright holder... (Recently, the Martin Luther King estate lost their lawsuit over the "I Have a Dream" speech...)".

Disney may own Oswald, but I don't think we should write to them for OTRS, since they already put that image out probably acknowledging how ridiculously old it is (I sincerely think they don't care). But I also know that doesn't help us at writing, since we can only add images from within this projects' domain, so we must either upload them or use something else, usually of lower quality :(

Anyway, there is still some contradiction to consider about the request: while the original uploader of File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg claims Public Domain (and that's why the image was initially moved to Commons from Wikipedia) I dont't understand why I can't for the derivatives or crops. If the claim for that image is true shouldn't these images also safely stay with the originally set copyright tag, being derivatives or not?
And of course one last thing to consider if we insist on being crudely technical: you are right about the year 2023 so let it be – after the deletion, if we are still alive, I can reupload them. Considering my small but personal input, the deletion will be a shame, but Wikipedia readers can certainly wait those two years (its actually a luck, we live in relatively nice period of history). So be it, hang loose, I must take it easy.–Jozefsu (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The critical thing to understand about File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg is that copyright status isn't actually as simple as we present it on Commons. A single image such as File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg can have multiple overlapping copyright statuses for different parts or aspects of the work (as well as for the work as a whole). This is similar to how in a movie, you have separate copyrights for the music, the script, the video, copyrighted works depicted within the movie, and the movie as a whole (the creative combination of all of those aspects). File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg is not 100% public domain since it includes a copyrighted character. I was planning on nominating it for delation as well once this deletion discussion concludes. I didn't include it here because I didn't want to make this discussion more complicated. I chose only the simple cases to start with. Kaldari (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: Great! That deletion will affect 22 (twenty two!) articles across international Wikipedia, isn't there some kind of community voting procedure here as well on the sister-project Wikipedia? If there's none - I start to understand why people leave Commons. Do I have to remind you that it's you overzealous admins that play this game alone – if Disney, the worlds biggest Megacompany would have been bothered by these small images (which promote them thus increasing their business!) they would have already filed a takedown notice. I told you before, so I repeat: do what you want. BUT without proper voting procedure this is highly unfair and controversial (not in line with Wikimedias policy as I understodd it). PLUS, as for our discussion here, while both of us used valid arguments you contradicted yourself at least two times. The first instance I described earlier (now you you decided to delete that image too, so its 'settled') and the second being when you said I can transwer the files for fair use to Wikipedia and later changed mind saying fair use can't be my option. Well, so you know I will not give up the UB Iwerks article and will after this deletion transfer the files to show up there, because they are ridicuiously small for printing, and thus unlikely to be considered a legal infringement.
(Of course I have known worse scenarios, when peoples uploads were deleted without notice or by a bot, so in the name of the Community I appreciate your diligence. Wikipedia is full of vandal attacks, they (we) would be lucky if they had such a zealous band of admins.)–Jozefsu (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jozefsu: I don't nominate images for deletion in order to please myself or Disney. The only reason is to protect our re-users. If we are telling Commons users that they can re-use these images without any problems, we are lying to them and legally endangering them. Disney may not send a take-down notice to us, but they wouldn't hesitate to send a take-down notice to anyone who is re-using the images commercially. Remember, this is the same company that forced three day care centers in Florida to paint over their Mickey Mouse murals because they hadn't paid a licensing fee to Disney.[4] Do you really want to endanger our re-users? Also, you misunderstood my comments about Fair Use. You cannot host images on Wikimedia Commons under Fair Use, but you CAN host images on English Wikipedia under Fair Use. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we are still missing opinions of other users/admins. Someone else may have a word, hopefully recommend a better solution. I don't think we want to see an encyclopedia without pictures where we will be left as only option trying to explain how visual art products, comics, paintings and movies look like... (there is no much consolation in that exact argument of the policy guideline). Although indeed there is no universal solution, I agree with what you said 'copyright status isn't actually as simple as we present it on Commons'. Eventually I understand the problem from the point of view of business use. Of course as a free user, I am concerned about Wikipedia articles only. But please don't presume we the regular users don't know/care about copyright issues, its a neverending pain that takes away energies that we could utilise elsewhere. Yes, it's kinda komplex, e.g. we kind of talk about free encyclopedia and in the meantime our logo is copyrighted, to prevent potential misuse. I guess its not just a two faced, hypocritic world, but an inevitable reality. (I understand there is already a danger of misuse of even our freely submitted material here. Let's hope that will never happen.)–Jozefsu (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last year The Walt Disney company just gave huge honor to Ub. So I am eventually fine with their ownership of Oswald and the deletions :)–Jozefsu (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Don't know if I am allowed to do this (while the dispute is on) but as a possible solution, I added copyright notice to both files, as used here. Same category, but some years difference :) –Jozefsu (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever it may concern as per this nomination: After the appropriate copyright notice added this deletion request may become irrelevant and unregular.–Jozefsu (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jozefsu: This is, as I'm afraid to say, because the nominator isn't @Yuraily Lic: , by that user, the DR rationale would be "COM:DW of copyrighted characters, no FOP in XXX, per YYY/COM:TOYS, or see also ZZZ costume cases". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I had just finished closing this DR as "delete" when I reviewed the article on Trolley Troubles again and realized I had made some misunderstandings, so I've reopened the discussion. Our own article cites United States Copyright #L24088 as the reason why the film Trolley Troubles is out of copyright. Meanwhile, [5] asserts that while Poor Papa was created before Trolley Troubles, Trolley Troubles was the first film to be copyrighted, which is what matters under the Copyright Act of 1909. @Kaldari: What do you think of this argument? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is no copyright of concern. The copyright of the listed images is dependent on the copyright of this poster, a derivative of the 1927 film Trolley Troubles. This film was directed and produced in the U.S. by citizens thereof, and thus is a “U.S. work” for Wikimedia Commons policy. It is not old enough to be absolutely free from copyright, however, so a full canvas of relevant copyright and renewal registrations is necessary. The film (as viewable on Wikipedia) is of such a low quality that it is not possible to tell whether a copyright notice is affixed, and the relevant issues and indexes of the CCE do not indicate a timely registration. However, for the sake of absolute certainty, I checked the relevant renewal records; and Trolley Troubles was not renewed. Because of this, the film is not in copyright in the U.S. There is some concern over what copyright in the poster is unique to that item, separate from the film; but it is not relevant in this case, because the film is not copyrighted. Kaldari: I do not know from whence you hold the assumption that the film is copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: I think the point is that failure to comply with copyright formalities on a derivative work does not cause the original work to fall into the public domain. So if Oswald first appeared in Poor Papa and subsequently in Trolley Troubles, Trolley Troubles cannot be fully free unless Poor Papa is free as well. (See w:It's a Wonderful Life#Ownership and copyright issues for a notable example.) However, the forum user's argument in my link is that under the copyright laws of the time, Trolley Troubles predates Poor Papa by date of publication, which is what matters, so the copyright of characters in Trolley Troubles cannot be constrained by the still-copyrighted Poor Papa. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    King of ♥: In this case, because Poor Papa was subsequently published (in 1928), it has no prior copyright as an unpublished work. I know of It’s a Wonderful Life, but, as I said, the story was published prior to the film’s release, rather than (what would be in this case) the other way around. I can verify that Poor Papa was renewed (R169190 referencing L25296); but that for a 1928 publication copyright, not a 1926 creation copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; but it is important to make this point so we have a full understanding of the copyright of the work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question How does character copyright work? Poor Papa was the first film produced while Trolley Troubles was the first film published. Is it the first work produced or the first work published which determines character copyright status in the United States?
I was able to find this:
“ POOR PAPA, a photoplay in one reel by Universal Pictures Corp. © 22May28; L25296. Universal Pictures Co., Inc. (PWH); 25Apr56; R169190.

from Catalog of Copyright Entries: Motion Pictures and Filmstrips, January-June 1956, page 56

”
I could not find a renewal for Trolley Troubles. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: great thanks for the thoughtful discussion from @King of Hearts and @TE(æ)A,ea. Summarising: Trolley Troubles was published in 1927, Poor Papa was published later, in 1928. Trolley Troubles seems to be free (no renewal records and likely not to have copyright notice), so, the character is not copyrighted, too. The restriction of Poor Papa is less relevant here as the character was first published in a now-free Trolley Troubles. --rubin16 (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Oswald_iwerks.svg&oldid=591768381"