Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rabkoland 04.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:Rabkoland 04.JPG

[edit]

While the original 1976–1977 versions of the Garfield character might be in the public domain (per a Commons village pump discussion currently taking place), the modern version of Garfield, which this toy art is derived from, is still under copyright. Therefore it is my opinion that the toy art itself is (while by only a matter of technicality) copyright infringement. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: No, I said I am certain the modern Garfield is copyrighted in the US, and also probably Poland. What is unsure is whether a totally separately looking Garfield from 1976-1977 comics is under copyright, which is totally unrelated. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a private amusement park is still considered to be "publicly accessible". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep What evidence do you have that this is Garfield? The US does not have a monopoly on every ginger cat, any more than it thinks it owns every mouse, and I'm sure the ride designer was well aware of this. This isn't even in the US either. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: It's used in Wikipedia articles about Garfield across projects. It's in the category for Garfield. So in as far as the way we're universally using the image at least, it's Garfield. And there's no way this cat wasn't designed to be Garfield either. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: And it doesn't matter if it's in the US or not; the WMF is hosted in the US, so US law takes priority. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Garfield to be protected by copyright, it would have to pass COM:TOO such that it was not merely a drawing of a generic ginger cat. It would need some features highlighted in a consistent fashion, such that it became an original and recognisable portrayal of the character. I don't question that the cartoon character clearly has those. But what features does this ride have, beyond those of a very generic ginger cat, which are distinct as being those of Garfield?
Wikipedia's use of it is a matter for Wikipedia. If they want to claim that it's Garfield, then that's up to them. It doesn't make it an infringement on that basis. (I believe there's UK case law there on the matter of the traditional painting of ice cream vans. You're at liberty to think that the van is painted with Donald Duck, but if the painter merely painted a duck on there and drew a jacket on it, that's no infringement. Selling "Donald Duck icecream" would be.) Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Not clearly distinguishable as Garfield as opposed to a generic ginger cat. Whether or not Wikipedias decide to call this "Garfield" is up to their editorial discretion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rabkoland_04.JPG&oldid=613801470"