Commons:Deletion requests/File:PolistilAutobianchi.jpg

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:PolistilAutobianchi.jpg

[edit]

derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Same here:[reply]

  • File:AMT70Torino.jpg Shows example of coaster model. I think this one should be removed. I can use other non-copyright photos of my own.
  • File:SMP59Corvette.jpg Shows (with below) example of transition from SMP to AMT.
  • File:AMT59Mercury.jpg Same as above.
  • File:AMT57TBird.jpg Show example of instructions for a styling model not seen on model itself.
  • File:Solido1975.jpg Catalog appearances are important too. Since this has the date and the copyright is "registered" it should be romoved.
  • File:MPCCougar.jpg What did MPC kits look like? This is an example. (Which should be removed).
  • File:SchucoPiccoloBus.jpg German Shuco's packaging was quite colorful with or without bus.
  • File:LoneStarBus.jpg Packaging here shows competition with other brands like Corgi and Dinky.
  • File:SchucoMercedesBus.jpg No just the bus alone, but what did it look like on the shelf? Well, there is not other way to get a picture of this bus except within the package because I'm not taking it out!
  • File:Husky Auto City BMW.jpg Shows what Huskies looked like after purchased by Mattel !
  • File:Politoys Iso Rivolta.jpg Politoys packaging is important - and with model. Note here that the boxes don't carry any particular logo, photo, or script that appears copyrighted. I think this one could be safely removed from this list. I don't think there is copyright violation here.
  • File:Politoys M-series brochure.jpg M brochure was simplistic and to the point compare to Solido 1975, but except for the APS, there is not a logo or particular script. I think this falls in the same category as the Iso Rivolta.

I didn't nominate the pictures where the subject is the model itself, not an illustration. --Eusebius (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the requests to delete this (these) pictures. In collection of diecast and other model cars the packaging is just as important as the model itself, sometimes the packaging is more important. A car in the original package is worth much more than the car itself. Sometimes the packaging shows a photograph of the car which makes the subject even more intriguing. Collectors want to know what the packaging looked like, not just the model itself. How models have been packaged over time shows a lot about industry, tastes, and values in different time periods. You'll notice these pictures usually show the car and the package.
What if I wanted to start a Wiki site on advertising, but couldn't show any of the ads at all from different periods (of course within permits of 'fair use')? It would not make any sense.
Not many model cars, especially in 1:43 and 1:24 scale from Europe use photographs for the packaging so it makes the toy/model very interesting for the Wikipedia entries for which these pictures are being used. They are extremely instructive. The same goes for pictures of old toy catalogs and brochures. Of course, if these are deemed against copyright law, I would understand, but deleting them would defeat the purpose of many of the articles they adjoin - and showing only the cars themselves in not nearly as interesting or explanatory. See my rationale belowabove for each picture.
--Cstevencampbell (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC) note: this answer was moved from the top of the discussion to the bottom, so the comments are of course above now.[reply]
Steven, have you read the linked page COM:DW? This are blatant derivatives of non-free product packaging. Almost eligible for speedy  deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.s, as you mention "within permits of 'fair use'" - fair use is absolutely not allowed on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand the derivative idea. Polistil has been out of business though since 1993 - I don't know who owns the copyright.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my comments about photos above revised today.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Many different cases, difficult to see what the problem is. Was anything nominated copyrighted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same problem for all nominated pictures: they are derivative works of illustrations which are copyrightable and for which we have no reason to think that they are free of rights. Comments added by the uploader are related to the educational value of the files, not to copyright issues. --Eusebius (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that I looked at seemed very {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right then, there are different issues, based on different source countries... --Eusebius (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DeleteThey all appear to be copyvio, subject to the possibility that there was no notice on the USA examples. I find that hard to believe, though. BTW, the (R) on File:Solido1975.jpg refers to the fact that the trademark was registered (1969, expired, unrenewed 1990), not the copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletions should not be done based on what someone finds hard to believe. Fact is that noone here has found a (c) mark anywhere. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept those that are {{PD-US-no notice}}, deleted the others (this includes potential PD-US-no notice; but no date was given). Kameraad Pjotr 16:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have decided that Wikipedia is not the place for the discussion of toy brands and their packaging since the packaging is so important to understanding how the companies presented themselves and competed with one another. Pictures of the models without packaging just doesn't portray enough information about the companies marketing audiences and goals. Also, it seems the deletion of pictures in doubt was done so capriciously - when no one really knew if they were in copyright violation or not, including myself. So, in my opinion, the proper place for this venue and its discussion is in publishing books or articles in professionally edited outlets where copyrights can be appropriately pursued. I will not be contributing to Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons any longer, as it is counterproductive to what needs to be shown in complete encyclopedia entries that could give exceptionally good ideas as to what the companies and their products were really like. That simply cannot be done here. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:PolistilAutobianchi.jpg&oldid=40978141"