Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Aibo

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.

Files in Category:Aibo

The Aibo robotic toy dog, which is copyrightable in the US (where Commons is hosted), is shown prominently and is the main subject in these photos.

Gazebo (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very silly deletion request. Antiquated mass market electronic appliances/toys are being flagged as if they were unique works of art. The same argument would apply to other good looking toys and appliances such as Apple II, Roomba, Treo, Furby etc etc Yet photos of all these are established as fair use in Wikis. Kaffiend (talk)

Well it does. See COM:TOYS. Rama (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That applies specifically to toys, so addresses the Furby case but not the others. Is Aibo a toy? Probably not. They were marketed as entertainment robots, and were not sold through toy distrubutors. They were also used extensively for robotics research, and their programming capability for consumers was a highprofile feature. Together, these suggest that they were represented by the maker as robotic appliances, not as toys. Is the initial request tied into the 'toy' argument? If so, that wasn't clear to me and I hope it is now addressed. 06:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at IP Frontiers article cited in COM:TOYS, it seems a relevant aspect defining toys is that they are not "useful articles”, specifically "toys do not have an intrinsic function other than the portrayal of the real item and are therefore, not useful and are protectable by copyright". Under this criteria, Aibo is not a toy because it is a useful item and not merely a representation of one, and therefore it is not protected by copyright.

This advice isn't documented or refers to applicable law. To browse texts to find excuses to keep the media, instead of performing an objective assessment of the situation, is probably one of the worst road we could take. The goal is not to keep images at all costs, but to warrant third party users we've done a maximum to ensure everything is in public domain or under free licenses, without infringing any rights. --Dereckson (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaffiend, I understand your desire to keep these images, and I truely sympathise. However, coming from the same spot as you, I would seriously advise against investing yourself emotionally in the defence of images in such situations. We have to make do with the US system of law, which is in some respect quite dysfunctional. This is a given against which there is nothing we can do, and we really are not the worst victims anyway. The silver lining is that this is a win-win situation for us: when the images are kept we are progressing in our aim of a Free encyclopedia and Free culture; when the images are deleted because of ridiculous laws, we are exposing the ridicule. The only bad outcome would be keeping images in spite of the law, as this would give credit to the notion that you can have a dysfunctional legal system without suffering consequences. Rama (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request currently asserts copyright holds, but doesn't give any argument for that claim. The only argument put forward in these discussion so far is the TOY one, which doesn't seem relevant on close reading. Is there some other reason for believing copyright holds, or is there any belief by editors that TOY does hold? 10:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe, and I think that it is also the view of Gazebo, that the TOY thing applies. The main purpose of Aibo is amusement, arguably making it a toy; their use in research does not change that fact, a bit like Lego being used in research.

Again, this state of affairs does not please me any more than you, but we have to deal with an essentially technical criterion as to whether a clause can apply or not -- not whether we think it should or is desirable. Rama (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly COM:TOYS has to have limits so that we can decide what is a toy and what is not. Some things will be clearly toys, and some things like Aibo are less obvious. Our own gut feel about whether it is a toy seems irrelevant, and so does the assertion that "the main purpose of Aibo is amusement, arguably making it a toy". What we need is a definition that clarifies the importance of intended purpose, actual use, marketing and other criteria. In the absence of a clear line of reaosning that establishes Aibo as a toy, on such criteria, it is not appropriate to be destroying Wikicommons content of value to others. If there are deletion guidelines that recommend differently to that, please raise them. I did take the time to read the TOYS guidelines and the readily available sources and described what was found earlier, which seems to immediately dispel the TOYS argument. A counter argument needs to have similar or deeper foundations. 14:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd further note that the ONLY citation in COM:TOYS that seems to deal with a definition is one the one that I mentioned, and the one that would appear to categorically dispel any categorisation of AIBO as a toy (irrespective of our subjective views). To continue a quote on the relevant section 'The [relevant] case did not settle the usefulness issue for all toys. For example, toy stunt plane launchers were found “useful” by a district court because launchers launch toys into the air, which, this court reasoned, is a “use” beyond just portraying a real item'. Usefulness seems to immediately quash copyright in this one article which forms the basis for COM:TOYS, and clearly AIBO were functionality beyond portrayal, and had widespread use as programming tools, research units, home survellance devices etc 14:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right that it is not obvious and that our opinions are not central. The thing is that in such a case, the conjunction of COM:TOYS and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle will have the files deleted by default. To retain them, we should be able to prove that the Aibo is not a toy, for which I am not optimistic. Rama (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't say that I completely believe Aibo is not a toy. Just as uploader one of the images want to note that Aibo had significant scientific propose and it is what I know it for. Poster of Robocup 2006 competitions was mainly depicting an Aibo and Aibo was known for its programmability which I believe it makes it beyond being a toy. −ebraminio^talk 18:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rama, I appreciate your engagement, but disagree with your current thinking. There doesn't seem to be an argument that Aibo is a toy in the meaning of US Copyright. At the moment having looked at the Wikipedia policy, and the cited article, Aibo doesn't fit into the definition, so the policy does not apply. There's no real ambiguity about that. Thank you for pointing me to the precautionary principle.

Earlier, the argument is raised that the 'main purpose of Aibo is amusement'. That is not a criteria that seems to be relevant or even discussed in Wikipedia policy or its cited articles. If you believe it is a relevant criteria, then there should be a discussion at the policy page about why coverage should be extended, not on a specific outlying deletion request. It does seem that the policy is currently weak because of a lack of clear definition. Kaffiend (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if we say that the Aibo is not a toy, it still has a copyright as sculpture. The fact that a work may be useful does not preclude copyright for features that do not contribute to its usefulness. And, by the way, the USCO agrees with me. "Aibo robotic dog" appears as sculpture with registration number VA0000998988. Any discussion of a post 1978 mass produced object should always include a search at http://www.copyright.gov/records/, particularly in cases like this where the name is unusual enough so that only a limited number of records will appear. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Toys are generally seen as utilitarian objects by Japanese courts and are therefore usually ineligible for copyright in Japan. However, as seen in Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc., U.S. courts pay no attention to this and Japanese toys are therefore copyrighted in the United States, where toys are not considered to be utilitarian objects. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of photos, but Keep File:AEC-robots.jpg, File:AIBO ERS-7 following pink ball held by child.jpg, and File:Aibos playing football at Robocup 2005.jpg per de minimis because there are people in the photos. I'm unsure about File:WW Aibo.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan4: The guidelines and that case are that utilitarian toys are not 'toys' for the purpose of receiving copyright protection. That's different to what you wrote, that toys are not utilitarian objects and receive copyright protection. In this case, even if you think AIBO is a toy, it is a utilitarian toy, and therefore the TOYS argument for copyright is not relevant in this case. Kaffiend (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of copyright as a sculpture, I think that is a very different argument for deletion than the TOYS argument that is this deletion request. Can I propose that we leave such other arguments for other deletion requests and focus on the TOYS argument in this one? It's already complicated enough with the overlap of Japanese and US jurisdiction, uncertainty about what constitutes a toy, and about what makes a toy utilitarian in terms of protection from copyright. I hope that we can conclude at this point that upon reading the TOYS guidelines, they are not relevant to this case, and no deletion should occur on that basis. Kaffiend (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaffiend It takes a certain level of arrogance to come here with 49 edits on Commons and 349 on WMF as a whole and tell several highly experienced editors that they don't understand US copyright law. However, that arrogance rises to an extreme when you argue that the US Copyright Office was wrong when it registered this copyright. Do you really expect Commons to keep these images based on your opinion when it goes against the USCO registration?

You are also wrong to try to separate toys from sculpture. There are only eight categories of copyright in the USA, see 17 USC 102:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

Just as computer software has copyright as "literary works", so toys have copyright as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works". Except for actual buildings, all 3D copyrighted works have copyright as sculpture.

Further, as I noted above, even works that are primarily utilitarian can have a copyright as sculpture if their shape is not an essential part of their utility.

"Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." 17 USC 101

Clearly the stylized canine shape of the Aibo is separable from any utility it might have. That is, presumably, the basis of USCO decision to register the copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jameslwoodward Jim, personal attacks are not welcome. I was invited to contribute, and claim only to have carefully read the the commons guidelines on toys. Commons policy does differentiate on the basis of toys, and that is the core of this deletion request. I don't claim to understand US copyright law, and I suspect few can make such a claim honestly. If you believe the commons guidelines are out of tune with US copyright law, which is what you seem to be saying, then argue for a change to the guidelines. A proposal to change the guidelines in the way you favour is sure to attract expertise, and you can engage and debate with experts. It is not cool to intimidate members of the broad user base who are making honest contributions and seeking to apply existing policy as it stands. If you believe there are reasons to delete these works other than because they are copyright according to the toys section, then go ahead and start another deletion request on that topic.

You also seem to have a difference of opinion with the US Copyright Office on what they do. Their view, described in Circular 1, is "copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright". They make no assessment, as you erroneously assert above. It also seems unclear to what extent a 1999 copyright for a robot dog would also cover subsequent model AIBOs, AIBO robot cats and so forth which are parts of this deletion request. Kaffiend (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is not subject to registration, it is an automatic right (per the Berne convention). In general, every time we have doubt on a point or when something is unclear, we are bound to assume the worse. Hence the cautious opinions you can see here. Rama (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rama is entirely correct that copyright is automatic, and that registration is not required. It is, however desirable precisely because the Copyright Office does, in fact, assess the validity of every application for registration:

"(a) When, after examination, the Register of Copyrights determines that, in accordance with the provisions of this title, the material deposited constitutes copyrightable subject matter and that the other legal and formal requirements of this title have been met, the Register shall register the claim and issue to the applicant a certificate of registration under the seal of the Copyright Office. The certificate shall contain the information given in the application, together with the number and effective date of the registration.

(b) In any case in which the Register of Copyrights determines that, in accordance with the provisions of this title, the material deposited does not constitute copyrightable subject matter or that the claim is invalid for any other reason, the Register shall refuse registration and shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for such refusal." 17 USC 410

I am sorry that you object to being called arrogant, but I object when someone who has little experience on Commons and who says "I don't claim to understand US copyright law" comes here and spends a great deal of our time defending images of objects that clearly are validly copyrighted as sculptures and which, in at least one case, have a registered copyright. You then went on to assert something that also was not correct -- the law clearly states that the Registrar of Copyrights makes a determination in every case. None of this is helpful.

Again, the discussion of whether or not these are toys is completely irrelevant. Toys do not have copyrights as toys, they have copyrights as sculpture. Since the forms that Sony made for these works are clearly creative works -- stylized sculptured animals -- and the forms are clearly separable from their function as robots, the fact that they may or may not be useful as robots is entirely irrelevant. Their exterior appearance far exceeds the requirements for copyright and that is all that the Copyright Act requires -- see 17 USC 101 quoted above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jameslwoodward, you are not addressing the arguments I've made. You are simply (1) asserting that your own knowledge of US Copyright over-rides commons guidelines and (2) proposing new reasons to delete material that are beyond the scope of this deletion request. This claim is about COM:TOYS, the guidelines have a specific section on toys, and yet you write "discussion of whether or not these are toys is completely irrelevant." Unlike me, you have not addressed commons guidelines (only your own view law of practice), and you have not proposed a new deletion requst that is in accordance with commons guidelines and would allow a proper revew on the relevant criteria.

It may be that your actions here are typically unreviewed, and it is only a small number of requests that are properly defended and subject to proper scrutiny. I think you should appreciate the time and effort from editors that are bold enough to take the time to uphold wiki principles and do so, and to give some consideration that arguments may be valid rather than play armchair expert, prosecutor and judge in one. Having attended Wikimania, I know contributions like mine are more than welcome to try to mitigate the problems identifed with current culture and practices.

In terms of the Copyright Office claim, I am not convinced by what you write, but that is really not relevant to most of the material in discussion here. My reading agrees with Rama in that copyright exists independently of anything that happens at the copyright office. If you want to claim that a CO record is meaningful, I honestly think you should assert the importance of the CO for the guidelines and receive expert guidance. Kaffiend (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interjecting again, but Kaffiend, you seem to put the burden of the proof on the side of image deletion; this reflex would be appropriate in the case of a criminal procedure, but this is not it. Here, the burden of proof is on the side of defence, and doubt is an argument for deletion. Our images are guilty until proven innocent; it is a bit disorienting at first, but the strength of Commons rests on this principle -- we want to offer the strongest possible guarantees to our users that they will not run into legal trouble for using our images. Rama (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rama Yes, the guidelines are clear with respect to the burden, as you say. I hope the burden of proof has been attained for these images with respect to the COM:TOYS argument.

For other arguments, I'd like to have a fair chance to review the relevant guidelines and respond. It would make more sense for them to be in separate deletion requests rather than this one, in my opinion. They should also specify the concern with reference to the relevant guidelines. An argument on the basis of authority by an "experienced editor" or on the basis of US law, where such law has already been interpreted for the Wiki guidelines, is not helpful nor in the spirit of Wikis. Kaffiend (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the bigger picture and what will be achieved, I think there are several things. We have an inconsistency where other non-useless (utilitarian) robots of stylised design have unchallenged derivative works on the commons [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] and it will be helpful to establish why there is this differential status. It also appears there is live debate in the Wiki policy area on whether US copyright does apply across the commons. Should Commons policy change as the outcome of that debate, clarity of decision making now should help with reviewing the status of these images. Kaffiend (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running out of steam here. I don't see how you can say:

"In terms of the Copyright Office claim, I am not convinced by what you write"

I didn't write the law quoted above, Congress did. It's perfectly clear that a registered copyright is prima facie evidence that a copyright is valid. Copyright Basics, which you quoted above out of context, says exactly that on page seven.

As for the fact that you believe that the Commons guidelines (which ones, specifically?) don't deal correctly with the US law on this subject, please remember that the guidelines on whether or not something is copyrightable are written generally, to cover the law in all nations. The law on utilitarian objects varies widely from country to country. That's true in this case -- toys have no copyright in Japan. But even granting the guidelines are wrong, that is not a reason to ignore the law, as you seem to suggest. It may be a reason to change the guideline.

Your suggestion that somehow the issues here need a separate DR has no basis in Commons practice. A DR considers all of the aspects of an image. See COM:Deletion requests.

The concept of separability (see the quote from 17 USC 101 above) applies to two of the robots you mention and perhaps the third -- Roomba and Ultimaker do not have a copyright as sculpture because their shape is not clearly separable from their function. ASIMO is not as clear a case, but since it is intended to be a humanoid robot, I suspect that it, too, would not pass the separability test. On the other hand, the various shapes of Aibo are stylized animals and have nothing to do with their functions as robots.

Also, the fact that WP:Other stuff exists is never a valid argument on Commons. We have more than 24 million images here. My best guess is that at least one percent, almost a quarter of a million images, should be deleted for copyvio or other reasons, but we simply don't have enough volunteer staff to do the work. If you think that other images have the same problems as these, by all means tag them with {{Delete}}, but don't argue that they are a reason to keep these. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: As per Jim Natuur12 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Aibo

Files in Category:Aibo

Navigation menu

Search